Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Dissecting Boeing CEO’s statement next new airplane will cost $50bn April 15, 2024
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 3. Propulsive efficiency April 12, 2024
- A350-1000 or 777-9? Part 2 April 11, 2024
- Pontifications: Boeing “transparency”–not so much. April 9, 2024
- Airbus charges and write-offs since 1999: more than €33bn April 8, 2024
Half time 2014 for Boeing and Airbus
The major OEM’s have published their half time 2014 results and we can make an analysis of their half year results together with orders / deliveries and the state of their product lines. We compare Boeing and Airbus on the high end and in a follow up article Embraer and Bombardier on the low end. To make orders and deliveries comparable we include the month of July as the OEMs collected business to be announced at Farnborough mid July.
Boeing had a strong first half 2014. Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) business is now past the initial problems on the 787 program and delivered 48 units January to June 2014 (8 per month) which is the same numbers as for the 777 program. The 737 is now at rate 40 per month with a first half total of 239 deliveries. The 747-8 is at rate 1 with only 6 deliveries and the 767 has stopped as a commercial program with only 1 delivery during the first half year. The commercial deliveries of 342 aircraft drove a 4% increase in company overall revenue and a 5% increase in earnings compared to first half 2013 (both non-GAAP i.e. the core business performance), this despite a Defense, Space and Security side which was down 5% on revenue and down 15% on earnings.
777-9X, 787-9 and 777-300ER in ANA colors
The troubled unit is Boeing Military Aircraft (BMA) which is struggling with its 767 tanker program (KC46A charged BMA with $187 million and BCA with $238 million due to increased development costs) and it is also fighting to not have its major military airplane program, the F18, stop 3 years from now from lack of orders. The military aircraft order drought contrasts with BCA where first half orders was 783 aircraft, mainly 737 but also 777X, where Emirates and Qatar confirmed their orders for 200 777X.
In the same period Airbus logged 705 net orders, mainly A320 (732 units) and A330 (29 units) whereas A350 finished January-June with -70 airplanes after Emirates cancellation. The A380 came out at 14 net orders. Airbus deliveries of 303 aircraft for 1H 2014 drove Airbus group’s results with +6% in both revenue and earnings as we reported previously.
Accounting differences
It is important to know that the profitability of Boeing and Airbus can not be compared by these simple numbers. Boeing practices program accounting for their large aircraft programs. In short this means that the total anticipated costs of the project is calculated (development-, tooling-, production- and warranty costs) and spread over the accounting block (the number of aircraft they plan to sell). The average cost per unit in this accounting block is then used as cost of goods sold (the picture shows the principle for production costs), revenue for goods sold is actual net revenue at delivery.
Program accounting for production costs (from a Boeing presentation)
This means that the high up-front costs for the 787 program is deferred and will be consumed little by little as the accounting block of 1300 units is worked through. In contrast the high initial costs of the A380 is already shown in the earnings of Airbus over the last years, as of 2015 when the production costs shall equal the net price of an A380 (according to Airbus) any gains in paid price over actual production and warranty cost will add to the bottom line of Airbus. It is important to understand these differences when one looks at Boeing’s and Airbus earnings. It can seem that Boeing is gaining a first look advantage when the costs of large programs like the 787 are spread out outside the year of the cost being incurred but late in a program it works the other way, it lowers profits when a direct accounting method would have shown higher profits. In essence it is just two different way to look at costs and how these shall be best accounted for in large projects.
Product lines
When comparing the present state of the civil aircraft programs for Boeing and Airbus the following picture emerges:
- SINGLE AISLE: Airbus took an early lead with the A320neo but Boeing has done a good job of catching up both in product attractiveness and sales. It is now a dog-fight for every airline sale and whereas the A320 had an initial lead in overall promised efficiency there is, what we can see, nothing separating the two today after Boeing gradually increased the efficiency gain to 14% over the 737NG. The A320 has a slightly wider cabin but the 737 has the Sky Interior which is more attractive to airline passengers then the dated A320 cabin. We see these programs evenly matched with Boeing having the upper hand in the mid range (737MAX8 vs. A320) and Airbus on the high end (A321 vs. 737MAX9).
- DUAL AISLE 250 to 300 seats: This has been Airbus turf in the present with the A330 and Boeing’s business going forward with the 787, the 787-9 out-competing Airbus single entry in the range, the A350-800. As the A350 program went into flight test last summer it was clear the A350 had reached a weight increase that made the “cut and shut” A350-800 more than 5 tonnes heavier then the slightly larger 787-9. With this weight deficit our proprietary model showed the -800 could no longer compete with the 787-9. We then modeled an upgrade of the A330 to a neo status with engines from the 787. This was clearly a better proposition and we predicted during autumn 2013 that the A350-800 would have to leave the scene for a revamped A330. We finally put figures on our conviction 29th of December and since then the A330neo got more and more concrete until it was launched at Farnborough as A330-900 (aka A330-300neo) and A330-800 (A330-200neo). Capacity wise the A330-900 vs. 787-9 and the A330-800 vs. 787-8 are more similar then e.g. A321neo vs. 737MAX9 or A320neo vs. 737MAX8, yet still Boeing tries to avoid a direct comparison by pitting the 787-10 against A330-900. The 787-10 has a capacity which is higher than A350-900 and is more than 30 seats larger then A330-900. Our first analysis of the launched A330neo shows it to be close to the 787 in efficiency, close enough so that Boeing now has a more difficult competitor on hand then A350-800 ever was.
—-
If the customers usage of the 300 seat models is mainly within 10 hours missions there is little to choose in per seat efficiency for a 787-9 versus A330-900, for longer missions the 787-9 is the only choice. The 787-9 is more efficient on a trip level by virtue of lower weight but the cabin changes for the A330neo has bought it at least 4 seats, so on a per seat basis it is very close. The A330-800 can fly the same 15 hour sectors as the 787-8 but this cost the -800 in the weight domain and therefore efficiency. Here there is a clearer efficiency difference but not larger than can be fixed by aggressive pricing. It will be an interesting segment to follow with the new lineup.
- DUAL AISLE 300 to 400 seats: The competitive landscape is here more complex, there is no single model which is close to the other in payload or range. The entry level contains A350-900, an efficient 315 seater which can fly 15 hour missions. The alternative would be the somewhat larger 787-10 but it will only perform 12 hour missions when outfitted with a realistic cabin and a payload containing any cargo. If your network requirements are within the capabilities of the 787-10 it is clearly more efficient then a A350-900, so much that a A350-900 Regional (a de-papered A350-900 with lower price and due to the lowered max weight lower airport and underway fees) has to be priced aggressively to compete.
—-
The next step up pits the 777-8X versus the A350-1000. The shorter 777-8X has the same passenger capacity as the A350-1000 by virtue of 10 abreast economy and a more efficient door layout then 777-300ER (4 door pairs like the -1000 instead of 5 for the -300ER). It trails the -1000 in cargo volume capacity (-10%) and has slightly lower efficiency as it uses the engines and wing from the larger -9X. Consequently it has the legs to carry the famous 45 tonnes of payload between Dubai and Los Angeles, a long time requirement of Emirates for a 777-300ER replacement. In fact the -8X can carry more but the cargo hold will be full before any weight limits are reached (for cargo with normal densities). The A350-1000 could only fill half the free cargo positions for such a trip, it would be weight limited at around 15 LD3 positions filled out of the 30 which would be free after passenger bags are loaded.
—
The 400 seat segment has only one player today, the 777-9X. By virtue of being the largest twin available with very good economics and payload-range it has sold extremely well since launch last autumn. Up to 1 of August 2014 243 orders are confirmed, adding the 43 777-8X orders brings the 777X program to a record 286 orders within less of a year of launch. This can be compared to 175 orders for the A350-1000 but there many eventual orders are hidden by A350-900 deposits (ref. United’s recent exchange of 787-8 positions for 787-10 deliveries). Still the success of the 777X program should cause concern at Airbus. When the competition was 777-300ER the difference was so large in favor of the A350-1000 that even long time Boeing customers choose the more efficient alternative, now the pendulum has swung the other way and Airbus is working on schemes to convince its -1000 customers to not feel compelled to add the -9X to their fleets. Such schemes involve using the cabin space more efficiently without compromising the 18’’ economy comfort (smart galley and WC solutions etc). We have modeled this and what a stretch A350-1100 would bring, we are convinced a A350-1100 decision will come before long.
- VLA segment: There is not much competition in this segment, the market did not accept the 747-8i when the next smaller Boeing model was 777-300ER and this will not improve now when the 777-9X is on the price list. This leaves the A380 as the only alternative for slot restricted hub to hub traffic when a 777-9X can not do the job. If you are Emirates this limitation does not apply, they fill the A38o out of their Dubai hub to more normal destinations. British Airways has now experienced the same customer reactions as Emirates has long known to leverage, when an A380 is available for your trip the passenger selects the cruise ship of the skies in preference to other aircraft, it brings such a difference in comfort. It remains for Airbus to figure out how more airlines shall be convinced that they can fill an A380.
By Leeham Co EU
Scott, you cite the production rate of the 737NG being 40 airplanes per month. As of March 2014 the official number is 42 airplanes per month.
I believe Scott bases his numbers on deliveries, not build rates.
Wondered if you took a holiday.. great work. I think the empty weight and related DOC of the A350 vs 777x can be concern for airlines. Just like the 4t difference between A350-800 vs the 787-9 you mentioned.
Has the dated Airbus interior ever lost Airbus a sale before? Because I keep wondering why it’s even a factor. Regardless of what Airbus and Boeing have as their default interiors, won’t Airlines just put in what the want at the end of the day?
It isn’t a factor and the sales figures don’t lie. Even if the passengers can tell the difference, they don’t buy the planes.
but resale values are reduced when you buy something that already looks old.
Also, the airlines are limited in what they can install by what the OEM offers. 737 interior is better, allowing for better passenger satisfaction.
it helps, if it helps enough to change an airline’s mind?
According to seat space I always read that passengers only look at the price. That is the only “look” passengers have at first place on any aircraft. As pax you are always unsure about the aircraft you will fly in the end. Maybe a 737-7, -8, -9 or a MAX?
Do you really think it is so important staring at a nice ceiling while thinking “When will this narrow horror end?”.
The airlines and leasing companies that have purchased over 730 A320s so far this year alone are obviously not sufficiently worried about the interior or resale value to not buy them, are they?
As to which interior is “better”, that’s purely subjective.
@Ikkeman: I don’t think resale values for a new 737 v A320 will be affected if the A320 is newer, but has Airbus’ “dated” interiors vs an older 737 that has fancy interiors. Also Airlines aren’t constrained by what OEMs offer, I remember Airbus offering an interior catalogue for the A350 and airlines like LH saying they have no interest in it and would look to their own interiors. There has been no proof so far that the 737 offers better passenger satisfaction, at least not enough to switch sales, of course if there’s such proof, I’m open to seeing it. You have to worry for Boeing if Airbus despite their dated interiors is still leading the market, wonder what’d happen if they updated the interiors seeing as it’s an important factor now.
Factually, it is a total absurdity to compute the success of a manufacturer by the number of of aircraft sold. . One (1) B777X costs more than 4 times a A320neo.
During and shortly the Farnborough show Boeing has sold firmly about 220 B777X, (aside 50 options) , Airbus a MINUS ~ 64 B359 and B3510, .this meaning a differential equivalent to more than 1,100 A320neos, without even considered the lost 6 A380 Skymarks (= more than 30 neos.)
The A330neo orders are a joke, as there are not more than letter of interest by airlines and leasers of which many do note even think to buy any of such, but would love to have them competing, so to attain a lid on the B787 prices!!
So, even if Airbus sold more A329neos as Boeing B737max, but by far less as stated, as here again, as the article notes, they computed not-firm orders.
All in all, the amount in real $ sold by Boeing must be during and nearby the show must be NEAR THE DOUBLE as Airbus really did
And it can become much uglier still on the Wide-Body sector
If the only re-engined (not really upgraded as the B777X or B747-8i) A330neo REALLY could become positively competitive to the B787 with the help of money loosing enormous discounts, a desperate strategy, it would even more so with the A359, especially applied to airlines which had intended to buy the smaller late B358. So what customers as QATAR would do with with the monster B359 order?? As well with the A3510 order, having ordered 50 B777X at Dubai and more “surprising” now committed to 50 more??
Is this not a pre- advise that a HUGE A350 CANCELLATION is on the way??
And last but not least: It is more than obvious that Emirates’ TIM CLARK (and QATAR AL BAKER) are not satisfied at all with the A380 (even if he try to mitigate it by issuing some consolation noises) and is pushing since 2013 for a re-engined A380neo, which until now due to the obvious lack of market was refused by AIRBUS, So why he ordered 50 not re-engined units in Dubai?? Well informed people tells that this order is a conditioned one by the final acceptance to implement a neo, to be applied to this new order and where possible to other existing orders!!
If Airbus REFUSES, at least the captioned 50 orders will be CANCELLED!! And possibly the QATAR order too, which has other complaints!!
Of course, above cancellations are only a scenario, but a possiible and comprehensible one!!!
Factually, it is a total absurdity to compute the success of a manufacturer by the number of of aircraft sold. . One (1) B777X costs more than 4 times a A320neo.
Now, what is really absurd is to “compute the success of a manufacturer” — using your terminology — at halftime. For the year 2014 that “computation” (LOL!) should be undertaken in January 2015 and not in August 2014.
Here are the net firm wide-body (WB) orders for Airbus and Boeing in the year 2013:
–
_____Airbus net firm WB orders 2013
A330-200__________10
A330-300__________59
A350-900_________179
A350-1000_________59
A380-800__________42
TOTAL___________349
–
____Boeing net firm WB orders 2013
747______________12
767_______________2
777_____________113
787_____________182
TOTAL__________309
–
The A330neo orders are a joke, as there are not more than letter of interest by airlines and leasers of which many do note even think to buy any of such, but would love to have them competing, so to attain a lid on the B787 prices!!
Again, come back in January. 😉
Emirates, for example, did take some 8 months to firm their letter of intent to purchase 150 units of the Boeing 777X that were initailly announced last uear at the air show in Dubai. In fact, only Cathay Pacific (21 units), Etihad (25 units) and Lufthansa (20 units) managed t sign a firm order with Boeing for a total of 66 777-9Xs last year.
–
And last but not least: It is more than obvious that Emirates’ TIM CLARK (and QATAR AL BAKER) are not satisfied at all with the A380 (even if he try to mitigate it by issuing some consolation noises) and is pushing since 2013 for a re-engined A380neo, which until now due to the obvious lack of market was refused by AIRBUS..
I don’t know what you’re smoking but Clarke, apparently, wants to order at least an additional 60 – 80 A380s…. 🙂
–
Wow, and I thought I used to detest Airbus. I like to think it was on saner grounds though.
“Factually, it is a total absurdity to compute the success of a manufacturer by the number of of aircraft sold. . One (1) B777X costs more than 4 times a A320neo.”
You are right. It is about profit per aircraft. One sold 777X makes no profit (marginal) at the moment. A delivered aircraft makes the best profit.
A delivered 787 would make no profit in case Boeing pays more to build it then Boeing sold this aircraft years ago.
Also delayed aircraft is expensive for a manufacturer. Boeing expected to deliver 10 B787 per month at the end of 2012. This goal was moved to the end of 2013 and today it is about 8 aircraft per month.
Expect Tim Clark and Al Baker to look out for the best offers for their companies.
Leeham Co EU (I’m sorry I don’t know your name),
Nice job on a great article! I also really liked the one you did on GE a couple weeks ago.
I believe the 787 accounting block has been increased to 1300 units. This 200 unit change accounts for 787-10 development and the planned production rate increases.
Thanks, we have even written about it ourselves 🙂
https://leehamnews.com/2013/10/23/boeing-earnings-call-live-update/
AIRBUS’ WIDE-BODY SITUATION AND “”CREATIVE ‘’ PLANNING
By Dipl. Ing. OTON TISCH
otontisch@gmail.com
B788 B789 B7810 B779X B744-400
242 Pax 280 Pax 323 Pax 407 Pax 417 Pax
7850 nmi 8300 nmi 7029 nmi 8200 nmi 7360 nmi
A358 A359 A3510 A380-800–(3 cl)
Dead 314 Pax 350 Pax 525-555 Pax
Dead 8260 nmi 7750 nmi 8500 nmi
See “A” See “B: See “C” See “D”
A: A358 This Model is factually discontinued
B: A359. This model was initially successful, mainly because the B789 was a too small competitor for many airlines, Boeing had not even initiated the development of a larger model and there was the perception that they would not implement the B78710 if developing the B777X. Now, as the B787-10 is available, it characteristics being nearly the same as the A359, it would be preferred between other of airlines which had bought already for different use the smaller B788. with widely compatible equipment.
C. A3510¨This Model was after several convoluted changes of opinion conceived for an use similar as the B777X, which is offered seat-wise as a slightly smaller substitute for the B747-400, which in the 3 Cl configuration has only 9 seats more but at a quite shorter range. (I am not analyzing here the B747-8i).
There is a large market for this substitution, which the too large A380 cannot fill (see “J”). But the 350 seat A3510 (- 67) is too small for such purpose, but near enough the 327 seat B7810 (+27) to be subject to its competition.
MANY AIRBUS FANATICS RIGHTLY WISH, A LARGER A35,11 CAPABLE TO COMPETE RITH THE B777X, BUT ONLY A WISH!)
D: A388; This largely conventional aircraft, after a convoluted 10 years construction, was already somewhat obsolete when entering service. Nevertheless, on some inter-Mega-Airport routes with billionaires PAXs it was economically OK, as BOEING had failed to implement the B747-8i timely. But by 2013, the Aircraft has no further market and a lack of economy as consequence of a not being state of the art design
———————————————————————————————————–
During above year, TIM CLARK has as insider known insistently proposed to AIRBUS to develop a A380neo the same way BOEING did for the B747-8i. As due the above stated market realities he was refused, when he had already got the B777X data at the Dubai show he agreed to issue new but conditioned order for 50 units (which AIRBUS needed badly) Which could be cancelled if the neo was not accepted, at least only for re-engining
By the way: Airbus has not the designing and planning capacity to finish timelyt he a 350 (900, 1000), A400, A320neo, correct the many problems of the A380 itself, and on top to implement the A330neo.
Above shows a VERY POOR PERSPECTIVE for the WIDE BODY business, already shown than by the fact that this year in FARNBOROUGH the only 6 widebodies ordered by a small country under heavy influence of the former colonial French government, a well meaningless :provisional orders by airlines and Leasers, which would like to have an alternative to the B787 .
Obviously, an only re-ENGINED A330 (i.e no new wing and many other tasks as included in a B747-8i, most importantly, no introduction of composites), can never compete with the B787. But, a many analysts and Airbus bonzos tell: the enormous discounts of an aircraft which even today has the same List Price a the B787, the promoters of such dream of a super-market!! Factually, suvh strategy is a sure way to debcle! !
THIS STRATEGY WILL CURE ALL PROBLEMS!???? .
Could be even more simple!, WHY NOT deliver the existent A330 gratis???!!!
Perhaps you could take your rant and preach instead to the choir over at VVs blog? — and btw, regurgitating falsehoods, over and over again, doesn’t make things true, right?
“MANY AIRBUS FANATICS RIGHTLY WISH, A LARGER A35,11 CAPABLE TO COMPETE RITH THE B777X, BUT ONLY A WISH!) ”
What about the folding wing tip wish? The 777X is as real as the A350-1100.
I notice you forgot to include the 787-3 in your 787-350 comparison.
this may show that both OEM’s sometimes misjudge the market and/or their capacity to actually gain some payload/range/efficiency point.
I would also draw your attention to the fact that the 787 program gain upwards of 1000 orders before roll-out, a much quoted record (and deservedly so) – but between it’s roll-out en first flight it lost quite a few orders also.
This says little about the product, and much more about the customers. At the start of a program airframes are sold cheap to make the books look good to investors. as the years pass, some customers can no longer bring up the money or patience required, or the design moves in a direction not in their favor.
Then orders are cancelled. This same effect happens to all programs.
On your stance on composites (including your comment on the 380 being “conventional” I assume) – Composites are not (always) the answer, and hybrid structures are a nightmare.
Finally, I love your use of caps. It really get’s your well thought out points across much more clearly when you scream them.
great article, even better than the usually great ones.
you deserve special credit for the simple and clear explanation of the huge accounting difference between the two!
one thing was striking to me: you put the the old 330s more on less on par with the brand new 787 versions, but the also brand new 350-900 seems to be inferior to the 787-10. So all old A stuff – 330 and 320 – seems to be doing well and the new 350 (and 380) is in peril.
350 is doomed to grow: The -1100 should have an EIS around 2021 – 2022 and I am sure, if it was Boeing they would start discussing that publicly already now, as they did with the 787-10.
The A330-900 vs. 787-9 and A350-900 vs. 787-10 shows what among others Lufthansa has been saying since long, aircraft which are designed to fly longer then you need will be less efficient. An excellent example is the 787-10 and the 787-9. It is essentially the same aircraft; same wing, engines, landing gear, empennage and they have the same Max takeoff weight (253t). What differs is that the -10 can take 40 more passengers in a 2 class layout by having a 5+4 frames stretch before and aft of the wing. It can therefore fly 40 passengers more but not as far as the 787-9 as the heavier and longer fuselage creates more drag and reduces the amount of fuel which can be taken on-board when the payload stays the same.
The 787-10 is more efficient per seat then the A350-900 by virtue of being designed for less range and having more seats, the virtually same aircraft, the 787-9, utilizing the full range capability of the original design (787-8 and 787-9 were part of the original designs) is less efficient per seat then the A350-900.
And of course a different wing would do the same for the 787-9 and or 8!
Etu Brutai as it were.
How far does the framentation go before they can only make NY to Boston? (grin)
does that mean that you would somehow also suggest Airbus to build a 350-1000 on the 350-900 platform to design a plane for shorter missions but considerably more efficient? (and evolve the current -1000 design into something truly more capable, where an efficient “-1100” could evolve?
If there is a market for it, we will build it!
A great idea!! But regretfully, BOEING had something like these and nearly sold it to the Japanese, which later changed the order for an more long range model. It called B787-3
Airbus seems in the business to look for customer for sell not existing designs:
Easily skipped reality in all comparisons; Apart from a few discounted 773ERs, the 777 is basically missing in action in the 2015-2020 period, while Airbus ramps up A330NEO/A350 production and output. So next to NB’s, Airbus will at least match Boeeing this decade on wide bodies; 10+10-12 A330/350s + 3/4 A380s per month. Vs 10-12 787 + 4-7 777s. Please tell me if I missed something, or many analysts..
777x will be heavy, however you look at it (or choose to ignore). 17inch seat width is acceptable when you are not large and the flight isn’t more then say 5 hours. Just had a 17 inch 737 flight & airlines won’t get away undamaged offering it for long haul. For e.g. EK and ANA the 777-9X will be 2-3 rows extra for a high price, not a new VLA or something like that.
Many doubt the A350-1000 succes, referencing low sales. It looks like it will be the uncontested champ 330-370 seats long haul. 777-8x is way less efficient, 787-10 a smaller, payload-range restrained platform. BA, UA, AF, JAL, CX concluded the same and many airlines will folow, ordering/ converting -900s (SQ & LH already said so).
Up to 1 of August 2014 243 orders are confirmed, adding the 43 777-8X orders brings the 777X program to a record 286 orders within less of a year of launch.
The airlines, you know the people who actually buy planes, seem to like the 777x fine. Yet you always must take something positive about Boeing, and spin it into something negative.
The A350-1000 and the 9X will compete equally. Airlnes wanting to replace 747’s and grow, will go for the 9X. Airlines replacing A340-600’s, 777-300ER’s, or growing from 777-200 ER’s will likely go for the A350-1000. The 9X will be perfect for the ME3 but not so perfect for anybody else. I think the A350-1000 will be a more flexible aircraft and a less risky investment.
You write:
“”Many doubt the A350-1000 succes, referencing low sales. It looks like it will be the uncontested champ 330-370 seats long haul. 777-8x is way less efficient, 787-10 a smaller, payload-range restrained platform. BA, UA, AF, JAL, CX concluded the same and many airlines will follow, ordering/ converting -900s (SQ & LH already said so)”
IPls explain YOUR and comment MY statement as we surly agree that what AIRBUS calls an upgrade is not the scope as a B777X or B747-8i (meaning new Engines, winglets, new wings, large introduction of composites and much more), but only new Engines and winglets
Further, as AIRBuS confirms, it will be only limited long haul, only 6-7000 nmi
1) As above are ALL the changes, I cannot see that a 310 seat not very long range A330 morphes into a 370 seat one!
2) I do not know where you info regarding all the airlines you cite comes from!! Fact is that none participated in the commitless letters of interest which Airbus calls orders.
3) Are you telling that the A333neo would displace the A350-1000?? If so, why not the A359 with a slightly smaller A332??
4) As for the competitiveness of the neo with the new technology B787 and A350,
do we agree that that if changing the 20
year+ago A330 engines we attain 12% better fuel burn, tjis do not apply not even nearly regarding the B787 or A350 much younger ones?? So that by doing so, the the seat specific fuel burn would not be even near of the B787 and A350 and that the only compensation would be to offer huge new loss bringing discounts, as the List prices of the A330 a nearly the same as for the B787?? (and not even so. as the new engines are quite more expensive!)
5) And , if you really believe that a A only re-engined fully Alu Neo can compete with the start of the art composite aircraft, this is equivalent to tell that both Boeing and Airbus were morons spending billions to develop them and that the A330 neo will by guilty of double murder, i.e. of B787 and A350
6) The :GAP between 2015 and 2929 is not 5 years, as much of it will be filled by deliveries of already existing models. And few will repeat the deed to buy an obsolete A330neo to fill a gap for 2 or 3 years, repeating the history of the A380, which was obsolete when delivered and now, only 5 years later, TIM CLARK is clamoring for a Neo, a one time success!!
7) And finally, do you think that the project and design staff of Airbus, after its not so glorious past regarding the the A350 classic, A358, A3510 (clamoring now for an -11), A340, A400 will deliver timely and positive results for the outstanding completion of the A359/10 and A320neo, the A380neo, now the A339neo and the ironing the continuous snags of the A380
“”Many doubt the A350-1000 succes, referencing low sales. It looks like it will be the uncontested champ 330-370 seats long haul.”
Pls re-read as between 330 seats and 370 seats.. 😉
Who do you think will lead narrow bodies and wide body deliveries for the next 6-7 years? Airbus or Boeing ? Pls share your thoughts / numbers.
W’ll see what happens with the A400, A330NEO, A321NEO, A350-900 and -1000 and A380 (NEO around 2020, 13 yrs after EIS, shocking!?). I think Airbus is simply in a very strong position right now. Maybe that’s why all the kicking and screaming at the other side.
If you wish to act seriously, do not make comments insinuating that I am writing for Boeing. I am ab 84 years old engineering consultant, a former director of a German multinational company and have nothing to do with Boeing.
So I would very much appreciate to comment my post point by point, I would do the same with your counterargument.
Of course, if you are not willing to do so, I would assume you are convinced!!
According to 5), I really think the aluminium fuselage and wing are very close to the carbon fiber 787 version. The 787 was the counterattack against the A330 after the 767 failed. The advantage the 787 had was the better engine. The A350 is a far bigger aircraft than the A330 and is primarily attacking the 777. The A350-800 was thought to cover the A330 segment but the A330 seems to be a tough stronghold now.
@3) Ever thought about an A330-400CEO as a cheap Asia bus?
“The 787 was the counterattack against the A330 after the 767 failed”
I never understood this argument. Wasn’t the B767 flying a while before the A330?
Also, I believe that the B767 when past 1000 orders (before the A330?).
If that holds true, every airplane would be a failure against future planes in their current market size.
So I don’t get that “B767 failed at all.”
I supposed the B757 was also a failure after it sold well over a thousand copies and then closed shop.
2) – Airbus doesn’t call them orders until they’ve been firmed and added to the O&D book. Thus far, they’re commitments. It’s very rare for an airline or leasing company to not firm LOI/MOU. The story with the A330neo is very similar to when Boeing launched the 787-10 – a lot of commitments.
5) – Yes, the A330neo WILL be competitive with the 787-8 and -9. In the case of the -9 VERY competitive up to about 4,500nm.
6) – The A330ceo will continue to see, especially in the Regional form. Expect China to place an order for 180-200 in the next couple of months.
7) – Airbus design and engineering staff are absolutely on a par with their Boeing counterparts. Anyone who doesn’t think so is a fool, frankly.
In the 2015-2020 period you are discussing, Airbus will produce 110 330’s a month (assuming new orders for the ceo, not a given). In 2015 Airbus will produce 2 350s a month, in 2016 it will be 4 350s a month, and 2017 7-8 a month. They will hit 10 a month in 2018. The 380 is currently at 2.5 a month and it is unclear if the rate will go to 3 a month. The 330neo will start at 1-2 a month presumably using the 330 line, thereby reducing the number of ceos produced. So realistically:
2015 330c 110 Total: 162 162
350 22
380 30
2016 330c 110 Total: 190? 184
350 44
380 36? (30)
2017 330c 110? Total: 234? 228
350 88?
380 36? (30)
2018 330c/n 110? Total: 256 250
350 110?
380 36? (30)
2019: 330c/n 110? Total: 256 250
350 110
380 36? (30)
1098 (best) 1074 (likely)
Boeing will be producing (assuming 787 rampup proceeds well, not a given):
2015 787 120 Total: 238
777 100
747 18
2016 787 140? Total: 258
777 100
747 18
2017 787 144 Total: 262
777 100
747 18
2018 787 144 Total: 262
777 100
747 18
2019 787 156? Total: 240? 268
777/x? 72? (100)
747 12?
2020 787 168 Total: 268? 280
777/x 100
747 d/c? (12)
1266 1306 (likely)
Even being optimistic for Airbus and pessimistic for Boeing, I do not see Airbus producing more than Boeing. At best I see a 54/46% split, likely a 55/45% split.
This presumes 330 sales go well (maybe, I think I have seen they are projecting 6-7 a month) and 380 production increases (less likely) and 350 ramps up well (open question). It also presumes 777 sales drop (possible) and 787 ramps up well (seems to be under better control now, at least it looks like they are meeting guidance this year) and the 747 f market doesn’t improve (possible) and it is discontinued.
Regardless of the merits of the 350-1000, it has sold only fairly well compared to the 777-x series which has firm orders for more aircraft over a much shorter period of time with a variety of different airlines. So while there is room for both, I think that they will split the market with both getting a fair number. It would be unrealistic to expect the 777-300er monopoly to continue…
Mike,
You missed the (24) 767-300F’s for Fedex that will be delivered between 2015-18. And the (79) KC-46A’s from 2015-2020. = 103 767’s …
True.
The A350-1000 has had relatively near term available sales slots and has not been a success since the 777X launched, and the (ignored/dismissed/not a direct competitor to any Airbus) 787-10 has continued its momentum since launch. That’s why there are many doubters. If the A351 can’t beat the 777x in sales competitions over the next year it will be far from clear how a A350-1100 will in any tangible way reverse that. Throwing a stretch onto a stretched frame that is not winning sales for some reason today and hitting 6000 nm range won’t dominate the 370+ seat sector for 10+ years; that would be a real payload-range constrained bird.
The reference to an overall parity in frames ordered in 1H 2014 is true, but it doesn’t change the fact that the booked orders this year do reflect a dramatic shift in $$$ market share, and one that doesn’t seem to be abating or reversing course at this time. The real headline it seems to me is that Airbus finished 6 months in a year with a net negative in WB sales, despite owning one segment to itself, launching a re-engined model range in another, and having 3 (2 really) clean sheet CFRP models in flight testing/pending.
Why should the A350-1100 (MC) match the range of a 777-9X?
Just imagine the A350-MC is the more profitable aircraft on its full pax range of “just” 6,500 nm range (my figure – just an example!) then why should an airline operate a too much 777-9X aircraft on such routes. What happens then another airline operates an A380 against a 777-9X on the real long range routes?
I read somewhere that the 777-9X offers more belly space in case you can not fill up your aircraft with pax. That is also true for an A380. Less pax travel with less luggage. I read somewhere else that pax weight is 3 to 4 times more valuable compared to cargo weight.
A350-MC: Sometimes it is hard to see the difference between 1000 and 1100. Therefore I switched to Roman numerals.
Are you sure about the A350-1000 availability? My understanding was that before the last cancellation, they were selling 2020…
EK were scheduled to start receiving their A350s from 2019 (variant not specified). There’s also the possibility for other customers to bring forward delivery dates as a result of the vacated slots. But still it is going to be difficult to get meaningful numbers before 2020.
I see A350-1000 sales compared to the 777-9X two to one in the long run. The 777-9x isn’t as large as many want us to believe, it won’t be delivered this decade and 17 inch seat aren’t perfectly ok for long haul, despite Boeing telling us.
The 777-9xs higher seatcount is good of course, if you can fill them. The 777x isn’t somehow exempt of this A380s mantra. The center of the market is around 350 seats, not 400.
If the 777X would be a little heavier then the A350-1000, that wouldn’t be a real issue. Forget the “little”..
http://www.aspireaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Screen-Shot-2013-12-31-at-15.08.43.png
Let them be a few tonnes off..
To quote the source to which you linked (Aspire), but not the Airbus slide itself (from their July FAS report, avail free);
“Make no mistake, seat count and class ratio will have an impact on any MEW and OEW metric, butone could use the maximum zero fuel weight (MZFW) as a rough gauge for the 777-9X, -300ER and A350-1000′s respective weight efficiencies. The 3-class 406-seat 777-9X has a MZFW of 239,043kg, whereas the 368-seat 777-300ER’s and 350-seat A350-1000′s stand at 237,683kg and 220,000kg, respectively. Translating into per-seat figure yields 628.57kg per seat for the 777-9X, 8.8% lower than the 645.88kg figure for the -300ER and 6.33% lighter than the 628.57kg figure for the A350-1000.
Provided that Boeing execute the 777-9X well with tight weight control, which balances the need for larger 787-syled dimmable windows and lower cabin altitude that add weight, the 777-9X is going to be a weight efficient airplane that has an estimated 4.7% lower seat-mile cost than the A350-1000.”
Are you comparing a 9 abreast -300ER to a 10 abreast -9X?
The A350-1000 has a near identical cabin length (58.8m) as the -300ER (58.5m). So you would expect it to have around the same number of seats in a 9 abreast layout in Boeing configuration.
And of how much relevance is your weight efficiency calculation? The MZFW of the 747-8 is 295T and 3 class seating is 467, giving 631.69kg per seat which is lower than for the -300ER.
Your figures omit something.
The difference between MZFW and OEW is the maximum payload.
777-300ER (238 t – 168 t) = 70 t
777-9X (239 t – 168 t *) = 71 t
A350-M (220 t – 125 t **) = 95 t
My estimations: *: same as -300ER ** -1000 10 t heavier than -900
M: mile – Roman numeral for 1,000
With a pax at 100 kg (incl. luggage) you have the following payloads for full aircraft without additional cargo:
777-300ER: 37 t
777-9X: 41 t
A350-M: 35 t
So the figures for an aircraft full of pax are:
777-300ER: 168 t + 37 t = 205 t
777-9X: 168 t + 41 t = 209 t
A350-M: 125 t + 35 t = 160 t
Now you should run your weight per pax comparison again:
777-300ER: 205 t / 406 = 505 kg/pax
777-9X: 209 t / 368 = 568 kg/pax
A350-M: 160 t / 350 = 457 kg/pax
Your calculation did include additional cargo.
SORRY, I mixed up manufactures empty weight with OEW for A350.
Let’s say OEW is 150 t for A350-1000.
A350-M payload: 70 t
A350-M OEW + pax: 185 t
I also mixed up the pax figures between -300ER and -9X
so weight for pax
777-300ER (368 pax): 557 kg/pax
777-9X (406 pax): 515 kg/pax
A350-M (350 pax): 529 kg/pax
So according to the given seating the 777-9X is 3 % lighter per seat than the A350-M and the 777-300ER is 5 % heavier per seat.
The typical seating for A350 is 369 pax for two-class seating.
A350-M (369 pax): 501 kg/pax
According to floor space the 777-9X is just 10 % bigger than the A350-1000.
Here some 777-300ER cabin layouts:
383 seats (with 7 abreast business class): http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_France/Air_France_Boeing_777-300_D.php
310 seats: http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/American_Airlines/American_Airlines_777-300_ER.php
342 seats (7 abreast executive class): http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_India/Air_India_Boeing_777-300ER.php
311 seats: http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_China/Air_China_Boeing_777-300ER.php
Add 30 seats and in case of 9 abreast economy class seating add 11 % to economy seat count and you have realistic 777-9X figures.
Scaled 777-9X layout seating:
Air France: 413 seats without first class and seven abreast business class
AA: 364 seats
Air India: 406 seats with one row first class and 7 abreast business class
Air China: 370 seats
“777-300ER (368 pax): 557 kg/pax
A350-M (350 pax): 529 kg/pax”
– Again, why put the 3 class A350 at 350 and 777-300ER at 368? They both have identical cabin lengths and at 9 abreast it should realistically seat the same.
The table below gives a good idea of the respective size of the A330, B787, A350XWB and B777 models. Rather that rely on the misleading seat counts published be Boeing and Airbus (which are “massaged” to obtain the best seat per
mile operating costs by the manufactures) I have stated the length and cabin area:-
Aircraft………Length…..Cabin metre^2
B787-8……….57.6m………233
A330-800…….58.8m………238
A330-900…….63.7m………266
B787-9……. ..62.8m………268
A350-900…….66.9m………291
B787-10………68.3m…….. 299
B777-300ER…73.9m………337
B777-8x……. 69.5m………318
A350-1000….. 73.9m… …..330
B777-9x………76.5m………364
Note
1) the cabin area of the B777-9x is only 34 metres^2 more than the A350-1000
2) the B787-10 is a double stretch of the 787-800, Airbus can do the same to create the A350-1100 which should have a considerable weight advantage over the B777-9x and therefore better fuel burn per seat.
3) Also but adopting program accounting Boeing is effectively mortgaging its future development. Boeing is a $US90B company but to have $US30B outstanding in deferred B787 cost is going to hurt.
4) The B787 program has not only hurt Boeing but also its key suppliers. Check out the lastest Spirit Aerosystems SEC filings. Like Boeing Spirit also use program accounting but they find themselves in a forward loss situation with their B787 program.
5) Since the Global Finiance Crisis I have ceased to pay too much attention to Wall Street’s finiancial analysises, remembering “AAA” mortgage bonds that crippled banks throughout the world, Eron and the fact they once voted Ken Lay CEO of the year!!!!!
An interesting question is “If Spirit Aerosystems find themselves in a forward loss
situation regarding the B787 will Boeing and how would that affect their future?
When we do our efficiency analysis we do not use the seat counts from the OEM’s, that is not possible as they use different principles for their cabin layouts (these differ a lot). We therefore have developed an indepedent ruleset which we apply where we also keep the ratios of premium to economy seating the same between the aircraft models (otherwise you can not compare different size aircraft). Our efficiency figures for the different aircraft are therefore comparable.
Cabin area is one way to compare aircraft, we use it as a complement. There are good values given in earlier article comments and also in e.g. Airliners.net threads, you could look there to update your figures.
I have a question for Leeham News: You’ve published analyses on the availablity of A330ceo and 777-300ER slots towards the end of this decade. Investors typically look at the availability of production slots as a problem. However, if we turn the tables and look at the issue from the point of view of the carriers, then it is rather the lack of slots that constitutes a problem, is it not? In this decade, there are virtually no narrowbody slots available, and almost no production slots for the 787, A330neo, A350, and 777X widebody families. This year, Airbus and Boeing continue to book twice as many frames as they produce.
Is this situation not unprecedented in the industry? Is it sustainable? When carriers have to plan operations and project fleet compositions ten years out into the future, does this not bring new risks and uncertainties for all parties? The manufacturers have to manage their backlogs very actively and overbook slots to hedge for defaulting carriers, and competing carriers have to rush next-decade fleet renewal decisions only to secure a way to replace retiring airframes and maintain operations. I believe this new dynamic is intricately related to the discussion on a potential order bubble, and it would be interesting to read your take on this new dynamic; whether it is a potential problem and so on. Thank you for always insightful analyses.
You raise a good point, it is a real problem for the airlines fleet planners that there are virtually no delivery slots available for the different aircraft families until after 2020. This was most probably an important factor in Airbus decision to switch to the A330neo instead of A350-800, the 350 production line is full until 2020, the 330 line has slots in 2017-2019 for the A330neo and it adds another 10 slots per month to the 14 which is planned for the 350 line. The first 120 A330neo slots are booked but there should still be slots available for 2019, this will be one of the attractions of the A330neo vs. 787, more info here:
https://leehamnews.com/2014/07/27/farnborough-does-little-to-relieve-777-classic-a330ceo-production-gap-issues/
Re. bubble or not, the OEMs are overbooking as there will be cancellations, they know the financial health of the airlines and have procedures in place to estimate their grade of overbooking. Will this sustain a major downturn in the WW economy, we don’t think so but it should take care of normal fluctuations.
There is no telling what the market for the 777-x will be. Possibly, the megalomanic airlines who need that aircraft already ordered theirs (Emirates, Qatar, Etihad, Cathay, ANA). Aside from Singapore and a few other Asian Airlines, the market probably wont stretch much further. For that reason, Airbus should not invest into a stretched 1100 unless it could sell many to AirFrance/KLM and British Airways and match the range of the 9X.
For the A350-1000, however, airlines growing from the 777-200 ER and A340’s or replacing their 777-300ER would be better off with the A350-1000. Even in the US, where only AA acquired the 300-ER, the 350-1000 would make a safer investment.
As for Qatar potentially cancelling a massive amount of A350’s, it is possible since Al Baker wants to be Emirates, but unlikely. Even if it did, so what. Al Baker is never happy. Remember that Etihad went back to the 350 and even ordered more -1000’s after canceling some.
Just today, LATAM ordered 27 A350-900 and there will be many more orders to come.
As for the A320 versus the MAX, no “sky interior” can make up for the smaller, shorter, narrower cabin of the 737. It’s just an afterthought of inside paneling for show that actually does not even match-rounded window open panels for squared windows. Airbus could easily upgrade the interior of the A320 in a blink of an eye at very little cost.
As for the A330, passengers would rather fly in a 2-4-2 configuration as opposed to a 3-3-3 configuration. The A330-neo will be equally “cool” on the inside as the Dreamliner”.
My only criticism of Airbus is that the range of the A350-900 and 1000 are probably short by 500nm.
A for impressive looks, the 777-X will win the crown.
“For the A350-1000, however, airlines growing from the 777-200 ER and A340’s or replacing their 777-300ER would be better off with the A350-1000. Even in the US, where only AA acquired the 300-ER, the 350-1000 would make a safer investment.”
– This is why I say the A350-1000 will find more customers than the 777-9X. The latter is not a 1-1 replacement but a step up from the -77W. If operators are happy with the up-gauge, good for them. The A350-1000 can be a 1-1 replacement AND a step up from the lower models. It has a broader market potential. Some would like to say that it hasn’t sold well after being on offer for 8 years, but what does it matter if an aircraft has been on offer for even 20 years. It’s the EIS year and the production rate that is more relevant.
And I don’t know why it was even brought up, but if ever QR cancels the A350, they would have to take up a whole lot of 777 classics if they want to stick to their expansions since nothing else is available in that delivery time frame.
I’m in complete agreement with you. Soon, the A350-1000 will start selling. I think most of the market for the 777-x ( with a few exception of course Turkish, Singapore, Air China) already spoke. The vast majority of airlines which do not need those large planes, have not spoken yet.
@Joe
“Just today, LATAM ordered 27 A350-900 and there will be many more orders to come.”
That is not a new order…
The A350-1000 is a plane with a lot of ??’s You have EK who cancelled 70 frames because it didn’t match up and that they needed something bigger. Ok fine, but the same A351 that EK ordered is the same that QR ordered. 6/half a dozen. Cake/muffin. Will QR cancel their A351’s? Maybe not but stranger things have happend. Logically we can look at the A351 backlog and see its not where its supposed to be after (8) years on offer. Compared to the first 8 years of the 77W being on offer, it’s almost unfair. 175 in 8 years vs 318 in 4 years. Ok, some some have been LR’s but still it doesn’t diminish the figure too much.
The “heavy” comments about the 777x are getting old already. Seriously, it’s selling because fleet planners don’t mind that it is, if it is.
Im still curious of the ramp up from 2015 to 2020. Next year it will be close to 3 frames per month. So by 2020 it will be __? Exactly who knows. Too early to tell. Even today I observed that
The LATAM order announced today was an old order placed in 2008. 22 in ’08 and 5 more in 2010).
The 777x, like the A380 is great if you can fill it. True but the A380 has 2 other mouths (engines) to feed and with it space to carry the fuel and fuel to carry the fuel. With that being said, if your 777x is not full all the way, it not too bad because you can make up the difference in the belly below for cargo space, not the case on the a380. EK will be the only carrier for the A380 in high numbers. They are treating it like a 737/A320. They only fly wide-body aircraft and the novelty of the A380 is still there so with so many flying around, it’d make since to fly them instead of LH, AF, BA, QR, QF, SQ. Sure all of these carriers have A380’s , but not in the numbers as EK.
“The A350-1000 is a plane with a lot of ??’s”
In contrast to some “enthusiasts”, that view doesn’t seem to be shared by actual and potential customers who are also operating 777-300ERs
“Seriously outstanding”, “very impressive” and “an incredibly competitive aircraft” – that was some of the praise which Virgin Australia CEO John Borghetti showered on the Airbus A350 as he toured the advanced jet on its whistle-stop visit to Sydney this week.
Airbus finds itself in a familiar tussle with Boeing over which company will win the order for Virgin’s fleet beyond 2017 to replace the airline’s existing Boeing 777 and Airbus A330 jets.
http://www.ausbt.com.au/virgin-australia-warms-to-airbus-a350
and
Astride its volcano, Cathay Pacific’s A350-1000 order is one more important long term measure.
http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/astride-its-volcano-cathay-pacifics-a350-1000-order-is-one-more-important-long-term-measure-77876
–
“The A350-1000 is a plane with a lot of ??’s You have EK who cancelled 70 frames because it didn’t match up and that they needed something bigger.”
Well, EK had 20 A350-1000s and 50 A350-900s on order. Why not try being accurate? You’ll feel better! 🙂
–
“Logically we can look at the A351 backlog and see its not where its supposed to be after (8) years on offer. Compared to the first 8 years of the 77W being on offer, it’s almost unfair. 175 in 8 years vs 318 in 4 years. Ok, some some have been LR’s but still it doesn’t diminish the figure too much.”
There’s more than one way to compare aircraft programmes.
1) First, please do notice that developing an all new state-of-the-art civilian aircraft takes a longer time now compared to the amount of time it took to develop the 777 back in the early 1990s (i.e. 4 years and 7 months from launch to EIS on the 777, while it was 7 years and 6 months for the 787 and looks to be about 8 years for the A350XWB); or the original 747 programme back in the late 1960s (i.e 3 years and 9 months from launch to EIS).
2) The 777-300ER had only 83 firm orders when Air France received the first 777-300ER on the 29th of April, 2004.
3) The 777-300ER entered into service 9 years after the first 777-200 delivery; or 13 years and 6 months from the launch of the 777 programme to the EIS of the 77W. The A350-1000 is slated to EIS less than three years after the A350-900; or slightly less than 11 years from A350 programme launch to A350-1000 EIS.
–
“Im still curious of the ramp up from 2015 to 2020. Next year it will be close to 3 frames per month. So by 2020 it will be __? Exactly who knows. Too early to tell. Even today I observed that”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-16/airbus-seeks-to-quicken-a350-production-with-nippier-processes.html
A) The comments by the Virgin Atlantic CEO are fine and great but it’s the checkbook that speaks louder and is heard over “seriously outstanding”, “very impressive” and “an incredibly competitive aircraft”. TC begged Boeing to build the 748 and pulled a u turn and left Boeing high and dry. Action speak louder than words, we know that right!?!
B) “Astride its volcano, Cathay Pacific’s A350-1000 order is one more important long term measure.
http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/astride-its-volcano-cathay-pacifics-a350-1000-order-is-one-more-important-long-term-measure-77876”
That article is over 2 years old. The A351 was designed to be a replacement for the 77W but the target has now moved and the A351, while newer and more econimical, it is still targeting something that will be irrelevant in the next 5-7 years. I’m also aware that it can replace more than just the 77W. The argument that Boeing presents of the 778 being a competitor to the A351 and many have dismissed that but I wouldn’t dismiss it yet. The runaway and unsuspected success that Boeing had with the 77W MAY and I stress MAY trickled down to the 778/9 families. Honestly the A351 would hope to have that kind of stroke of genius. The slots for the A351 are sold out until waaaaay out, 2020 i believe and thats why the backlog is so small. But people are waiting just as long, maybe even longer, for the 788 and the 789.
The reason that the A351 has to get this right because what else is there beyond it? A380? nope, too big. A359, too small.
“The A350-1000 is a plane with a lot of ??’s You have EK who cancelled 70 frames because it didn’t match up and that they needed something bigger.”
Well, EK had 20 A350-1000s and 50 A350-900s on order. Why not try being accurate? You’ll feel better! 🙂 ”
C) I know the split, I m sorry I wasn’t explicit in saying the A351 had 20 frames that were cancelled.
D) The progression that the 777 had from day one ’til 2004 was ok because there really wan’t anything out that could really match it, let alone beat it. The A351 doesn’t have the time to crawl then walk, it needs to grab the baton and go because if not, what else is there. Stretch the A351 and accomplish what??? Compete with the 779? If the A351 falls short and crys for a bigger better version come from carriers, then you’ll have Airbus deciding if the market is big enough to build one and how long would it take to bring to market, how much would it cost, whats break even, yada.
While we are on the topic of moving targets, the 778 is essentially the next 77L whichever way you look at it. Leaving aside EK, the only airline to have ordered (8 total) is EY, and they added more A351s (22+10 total) at the same time showing that the 778 is too much for most of their needs in that size. They are also existing 77L operators. All other customers have shunned it and even ANA have gone full 779 (20) – and some new 77Ws (6) – to replace their older 777s.
“A) The comments by the Virgin Atlantic CEO are fine and great but it’s the checkbook that speaks louder and is heard over “seriously outstanding”, “very impressive” and “an incredibly competitive aircraft””
The comment the by the Virgin Australia CEO (NB: not Virgin Atlantic) — current operator of the 777-300ER — in addition to the analysis by CAPA, was used in order to debunk your claim that the A350-1000 supposedly is “is a plane with a lot of ??’s”
It’s quite clear the customers — actual or potential — have a clear picture of how the A350-1000 will perform. As pointed out by others, EKs cancellation of A350s had a lot more to do with their capacity requirements than anything else.
So, instead of spreading FUD, could you please point out where exactly that there supposedly is a lot of question marks about the A350-1000?
–
“TC begged Boeing to build the 748 and pulled a u turn and left Boeing high and dry. Action speak louder than words, we know that right!?!”
Again, for the second time, why can’t you at least try being accurate?
Emirates wanted the original 7 frame, 3.6 m stretch and not the 11 frame, 5.6 m stretch due their payload/range requirements.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/2007/11/06/boeing-to-emirates-747-8-intercontinental-wont-shrink/
–
“That article is over 2 years old. The A351 was designed to be a replacement for the 77W but the target has now moved and the A351, while newer and more econimical, it is still targeting something that will be irrelevant in the next 5-7 years.”
That target you’re talking about is IMJ moving according to Boeing and its surrogates, and it’s made seemingly because Boeing no longer has a competitive 350-seat, B-market aircraft. In fact, the fuel burn per seat will just be marginally lower on the 777-9X than on the A350-1000 — and keep in mind that to achieve that, Boeing must rely on GE to deliver a GE9X engine having some 5 percent lower TSFC than the TXWB-97 engine. BTW, what would happen to the 777-9X if the A350-1000 would be re-engined with a new one having a further 5 percent lowe TSFC than the GE9X — you know, an engine that would primarily have been developed for an all new Airbus mega twin family
Hence, Boeing’s got to make the most of what they’ve got — which, of course, is perfectly understandable. The 787-10 is a 330-seat A-market aircraft; the 777-8 is 350-seat C-market, ULR aircraft while the 777-9 is a 400-seat B-market aircraft.
As for Cathay Pacific and the A350, here’s another article pointing out, among other things, that all of Cathay’s A350 on order will have been delivered before the first 777-9X is due.
–
–
“The A351 doesn’t have the time to crawl then walk, it needs to grab the baton and go because if not, what else is there. Stretch the A351 and accomplish what??? Compete with the 779? If the A351 falls short and crys for a bigger better version come from carriers, then you’ll have Airbus deciding if the market is big enough to build one and how long would it take to bring to market, how much would it cost, whats break even, yada.”
Both the A350-900 and the A350-1000 compete with the 777-9X. For example, as was pointed out in the latest CAPA article, the A350-900 will allow Cathay to right-size quite a few long-haul markets with fuel-efficient aircraft rather than relying on the larger 777-300ER. In fact, that’s the situation for airlines such as Cathay Pacific and Singapore Airlines.. The 777-300ER is a bit too large for many flight sectors if an operator is planning not to have a first class section — and first class is becoming a rare sight on secondary route sectors.
Now, the 777X programme could IMJ turn out to be a very expensive $10 billion one-trick-pony. On the other hand, a stretched A350-1100 could use the same wing and engine as that of an all new Airbus mega twin family designed for MTOWs from 350 metric tonnes (i.e. A350-1100) to a MTOW of 400 – 420 metric tonnes for the A360X mega twin.
Addendum
CAPA link: http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/cathay-pacific-plans-a350-product-and-network-deployment-premium-economy-adjustment-180713
To Rotate, ROTATE :
Where did you read that Boeing sold 318 777-300ER in 4 years ? That’s totally wrong, just look at Boeing’s website. You must compare the first 4 years of sales, not the current ones. If the 350 delivers fuel-efficiency and reliability as the 777 did in the past, there’s no reason to think that the 350-1000 won’t be selling well.
And if the 777X is as late and as disappointing about reliabilty figures as the 787, there is no reason to think that the 777X is unbeatable. And there’s no reason to think that airlines can’t cancel their 777X orders either. The 777X orderbook is highly dependent on Emirates (as much as the A380 is) and even more on ME3 airlines. The A380 market situation can be seen as fragile but at least it has no real or potential competitor in terms of size or public attraction. That’s not the case fpr the 777X. Stretching the A350 even more is possible as the 350 project leader (Didier Evrard) already said, and in 2020 Rolls-Royce should have got new technologies to put into its engines. The 350 is just at the beginning of its life, just think of the difference between the first 777-200 and the 777-9X.
Those figures were taken from here and I used the 1st 4 years http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm?content=displaystandardreport.cfm&RequestTimeout=500&optReportType=AnnOrd&pageid=m15521
We can play the what if game forever but the reality is that as much static was raised about the 777x and the folding wingtips and how heavy it is and how the 777x is just a one trick pony. Well maybe fleet planners are fond of the circus and they enjoy pony’s. 777x cancellations? Sure, anything is possible but I’d baffled if airlines who ordered them would second guess their decision unless economic reasons forced them to reconsider. Its pointless to mention the price since carriers get good discounts but you see what I’m saying. We are at mid year and now stand at 266 orders for a 777 derivative. The best thing that Boeing has on its side is that whatever could have and did go wrong with the 787 will certainly not go wrong with the 777x. Its way too mature for those types of snags or supply chain snafus.
The 777x backlog is NOT highly dependent on EK. You’ll be happy to know CX, and LH, and NH bought it too. Last I check thy are not one of the 7 Emirates. ME airlines love it from Dubai or Doha, you can connect any city from that region with one plane /one stop. They (ME3) cant change where they are.
Stretching the A350 is possible but at what cost. Do you expect to gain more than what ypu are going to spend? Is the market big enough or a 777x and A350-1100? How many do you need to sell to break even? Airbus is on record saying that the next newbie won’t come until 2030, 16 years from now.
I mentioned earlier that the 777-200 had time to progress into the success that we see today. Once the flight testing is going for the A351 is set we willsee where we are but it doesn’t have time to evolve into a 350-1000, 350-1100, 350-1400, 360-8000/9000. Get it?
Rotate,
That would be 286 firm 777x orders.
“The 777x backlog is NOT highly dependent on EK”
.. …… well just the A380 then, ok?
Boeing has not done a composite wing before.
Boeing is breaking up its engineering centers and scattering them all over hells half acre (and then some)
Boeing just took a huge hit on “wire routing” on the 767 tanker. Wire routing and layout is basic modern aircraft production and Boeing has done 767 tankers already.
Now tell me again the 777x is a slam dunk?
@Rotate
Again, your numbers are not correct. Why?
Please go to the User Defined Reports at Boeing’s Orders and Deliveries page
http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm?content=userdefinedselection.cfm&pageid=m15527
Now, please do note that the 777-300ER was launched on the 29th of February, 2000. Thus “1st 4 yrs” would be through February 2004.
So, please click on:
x – Orders
x – Date Range: February 2000 through February 2004
x – Customer: All customers
x – All Model Series: 777-300ER
x – Sort order: Customer Name
Then — “View Report”
Result:
Orders for February 2000 through February 2004 = 83
–
In fact, 83 firm order is also the number through April, 2004 — which was the month that the 777-300ER entered into service.
So, why does the A350-1000 compare unfavorably, in your opinion, with the 777-300ER over the “1st 4 yrs”, when the A350-1000 already has 86 more orders — three years before EIS — than the number of firm orders the 777-300ER had at EIS.
Personally, I think the most interesting process to watch for is what the US airlines will do with regard to replacement of their aging wide body fleets. The 300-ER practically didn’t sell in the US and there is no reason to believe that they will go for the larger and heavier 9X’s when replacing their massive amounts of 777 200 and 200-ER’s. United spoke with the 35 A350-1000’s which was clever. American has both the 300-ER and A350-900’s on order. Delta probably will go for discounted 777-300ER’s and A330-Neo’s. Hopefully there will be more A350-1000’s and 787-9’s orders to come.
767: While the passenger version is done, the freighter continues on in low rate production with deliveries to FedEx
Do you know at which low price the 767-300F was sold to FedEx and others?
These deals were done to keep the 767 production line open until the profitable KC-X deal was available. Well, it was thought that the KC-46 would be profitable:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/07/28/software-hurdles-may-follow-kc-46a-wiring-woes/
“The Air Force plans to buy a total of 179 KC-46A tankers at a total cost of almost $50 billion through 2028”
Yeah, poor Boeing… Won’t make dime 😉
These are the costs for the Air Force with infrastructure for Air Force bases, tanker crew training and other things but not the money Boeing will get!
Price per aircraft was just $163 million for KC-46. Less than $30 billion for over 179 tanker aircraft.
https://leehamnews.com/2011/02/28/pricing-the-kc-x/
According to list prices the 767-300F is offered for $188 million (2013).
The KC-46 includes a flying boom, a refueling station for the refueling operator, one additional refueling points at each wing, additional fuel tanks on the complete lower cargo floor, small arms protected cockpit, … just read the KC-X request for proposal what else Boeing has to put inside this tanker.
Boeing will make some dimes with the KC-46 just like Boeing does it with KC-135: through maintenance! I doubt Boeing will make a good profit on KC-46.
The F-35 will kill the need for a big tanker fleet because just a few aircraft will be left to be refueled. So I doubt Boeing will sell the complete 179 tanker. You have to read careful. There is no contract for Boeing for all of the 179 tanker! There is just an order for the 4 pre-series aircraft.
No question FedEx got a great deal, but like Delta they do pretty good at it.
Also, like the A330, the 767 is well paid for, production costs are very low.
It works for FedEx and Boeing, what’s not to like?
QUESTION:
The “deferred production” thing has which effect on actual profits? Boeing has accounted cost of today into the future (by using a book value for production cost that represents the assumed mean over 1300 units)? Or does Boeing pay more today and will have even larger profits when B787 is out of the woods production-wise?
By the way: profit is opinion, cash flow is fact. Did either A or B give an indication how their cash developed in 2014? Airbus should have quite a cash deficit due to A350 development program being in full swing
+ A380 wing and door issues
+ A320NEO (while that is a cheap one)
Boeing? MAX was estimated about 3 billion USD in development, roughly double the number of the A320NEO. Why I still have difficulties identifying where all the money goes.
Leeham – great article and to the usual high standard.
Can you comment on reports a year that Boeing underestimated the cost of the B787 and actually sold the first few hundred at too low a charge? It meant that they were obligated to deliver but made a loss on each one. My understanding was that Boeing then shifted deliveries and brought forward later (profitable) slots so that they could mitigate the losses on the early orders. How true was this and if true, how much longer will Boeing have to continue selling some jets at a loss?
An early indication of very sporty pricing on the 787 was that the type was initially priced below the 767.
I documented this a few weeks ago and you can find the full break-down of 787 vs 767 list prices here:
https://leehamnews.com/2014/07/22/odds-and-ends-hawaiian-orders-a330-800-drops-a350-800-engines-and-airbus/
Here’s an excerpt:
So prices were initially very sporty indeed – which might even have been fine if the cost per frame had been what Boeing at the time believed (or wanted to believe). But with the extensive reworks required on the first few dozen frames, and the production process generally experiencing more hiccups than anticipated and output still below initial plans, the cost per frame is way above what was initially projected.
Getting back to your question: Boeing did sell the first few 100 787s at too low a price, but that’s a statement that partly relies on the power of hindsight. At the time, there were some critical voices about it, but Boeing seemed to really believe their own projections on the savings generated by the new production structure – and the time at which these would be available.
They’ve learned a lesson there, though – list prices for the 777X look a lot more realistic in relation to the prices of the existing product line-up (including the fact that they price the 777-9X above the 747-8i).
cite: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2010/12/the_price_of_boeings_787_sales/ Jon Ostrower:
The 2004 through 2006 airframe prices charged to airline customers ranged between $83.5 million and as low as $65.7 million for the 787-8, for one higher volume deal with a blue chip customer.
cite: http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=329 , Ostrower via Aboulafia:
More than anything else, Boeing wanted a category killer, a way out of the desperate price competition that hobbles the jetliner duopoly. The 787 was assumed to command a premium price. Yet earlier this month Jon Ostrower (Flightblogger) produced an article (http://tinyurl.com/295rqse) documenting some truly disturbing 787 prices. According to Ostrower, over 300 787 sales were achieved with an average unit price of $76 million (excluding engines, IFE, and other options). Hundreds more were priced only slightly higher. All assumptions about the high pricing power of this purported killer product were completely wrong. Between the higher than expected development costs, the higher than expected production costs, and much lower than expected aircraft prices (and penalty payments too), the 787’s economics now look awful.
Yet people were ‘shocked’ by the prices that Delta said they’d be prepared to pay for A330neos (which I understand excluded engines, anyway). Curious.
Bits of information from open sources: The 787-8 variant is typically sold at around $115 or $116 million (Forbes May 21, 2013, and WSJ Jan 7, 2014), presumably including engines. Boeing maintains that they’ll reach a positive cash flow (“break even”) in the year 2015 (CNBC Oct 23, 2013) but many analysts estimate that 2017 is more realistic (Bloomberg Apr 22, 2014). At that point, deferred production costs will top out at $25 to $30 billion (ibidem). Distributed over 1000 airframes, a ballpark figure of the program accounting block minus the number delivered at time of break even (1300-300=1000), Boeing would need to on average charge an additional $25 to $30 million for each 787 delivered in order to ultimately eliminate the program’s deferred costs, and obviously some analysts question whether this is doable.
In my personal view, the 787 program will yield Boeing Commercial Airplanes immeasurable knowledge, experience and skill that will give the organization the opportunity and ability to develop and run successful airliner programs throughout the twenty-first century; benefitting all who love aviation and ultimately its shareholders.
In the past I would have said that was true.
We are in an age where their CEO take delight in having the worker “cower”
He is actively taking the company apart, moving its engineering talent away form where the work is done, breaking it up and apart.
It has nothing to do with efficiency, it has all to do with playing people off against each other (efficiency is keeping your engineers together with production while they work out the problems and that has been proven over and over again)
He he is doing bait and switch, eliminating a job here and creating the same job someplace else pretending they are different. People are not transferred, they have to apply for the new job at a lower wage.
This despite the fact that there are only two companies in the entire world that can make a competitive modern aircraft.
Long term there will be a plane wreck
EK’s cancellation of the A350 means absolutely nothing as it is an out of the ordinary airline with special needs. Considering that cancellation as a devaluation of the A350 would be like saying that the A380 is super special because Emirates says so, neither of which is correct.
Exactly. Recall how many times Emirates was branded as an “oddball” airline with their 140 A380s and that their fleet strategy is in no way a measure of the success of an aircraft’s potential.
In contrast, the A350 orders has been topped up or upgraded many times by other blue chip customers: QR, EY, SQ, CX, UA, AA etc. Really speaks for the market confidence in the aircraft.
I agree with you partially. That Emirates cancelled the 20 A3510 is logical as they have decided for the B779X.in their fleet. By the way, what will QATAR and ETIHAT do now with the A3510 which they have ordered??
But why Tim Clark cancelled the 50 A359, adding the seemingly nonsensical (probably consolatical) comment that he would allow AIRBUS to quote start 2015 for such aircraft in his quest for a middle East operations aircraft?? This COULD be really meaningful, as it eventually implies he is thinking to purchase a basket of B787s, including the B7810, which has the same capacity as the A359 but a shorter range, which is no problem for such mid distance middle East operations??
Except the 777-9X is bigger than the A3510. CX ordered 777X and A351, LH ordered 777-9X and A359 and explicitly reserved the right to convert to A3510. There will be more examples like this… So it’s not like 777-9X and A3510 are mutually exclusive.
You tell us. Neither has indicated a desire to cancel their A3510s.
…or A350s. Saying this is already a clear 787 (or A350) deal is pure speculation. As has been mentioned before, EK can be a bit special. Nobody has and wants as many A380s as they do, and their orders and cancellations can sometimes appear a bit erratic. Like the one for the A346HGW, a plane only they pushed Airbus into, ordered… and then cancelled.
Dear Anfromme.
I fear you are trying o cover the sun with your thumb!!
a) Even if the B779X is bigger than the A3510, as I stated not by so much to introduce an additional aircraft in the fleet. b) LH ordered the A359 convertible to A3510 and at the same time the B779X in Dubai, the orders being not firm precisely because LH (as Emirates!) wished be sure regarding the characteristics of the latter. It took 10 month to affirm these a few weeks ago. Now we shall see what LH will do!! Neither we do know what Qatar (50 +50 B777x ordered, ETIHAD, CX will do Neither Emirates had revealed their intention to cancel !!! c) Even if TIM CLARK (even not so much as AL BAKER) is somewhat capricious, he is not so much that if he want to make a change in a 7 years old launch order for the A359, the first think he cancels it, only to issue a new one less than a year later!!! But possibly, he is waiting for a gift of underperfoming but gratis A330neos instead!!
Strange argument, as it would also imply that a) there is no point in the 777-8X at all, and b) if the 777X isn’t that much larger… why not simply stick with the A359/10 family, where at least you have some commonality, while with the 777X, you buy into an aircraft family with exactly one member that customers show any interest in (with the exception of EK, whose requirements the 777-8X seem to have been designed around, at least in large part).
Sorry, but that’s completely incorrect.
LH made the 777X (and the A350) announcement on September 19th, 2013, almost exactly two months before the Dubai air show, at which the 777X was launched. Which was why LH’s order initially wasn’t firm: The plane hadn’t been launched yet.
The 777X was officially launched on November 17th, and LH’s order in Boeing’s books has that very date against it.
Nothing, what do you expect? They announced the A350/777X orders at the same time (and at that time emphasised they have rights to convert A359 to A3510), and have had A350 and 777X on firm order for almost 9 months now (almost 11 months in the case of the A350, which they firmed on September 20th, 2013).
Actually… EK did drop quite a few hints. At the time of the A380 order last year, Clark said that he’s not so interested in the A350 any more, which he believed was a bit small for Emirates.
Also, it’s somewhat common knowledge at this point that the A350 cancellation was a trade-in for the 50x A380 order they placed last year. Etihad, CX and Qatar aren’t quite comparable in that regard.
In a recent article, it was mentioned that over 75% of Emirates flights are 4000nm or less. So it is possible that the standard A350-900 might not be the most optimized plane for such shorter routes. Perhaps the A350-900 Regional or the 787-10 will be the contenders. No-one knows and it is probably not that important anymore.
1) It is a fact that until the B7810 entered the scene, many doubted it will be implemented because Boeing will concentrate its efforts in the B777X. So, for many airlines the the B789 was too small and consequently ordered the larger A359
Now, the B7810 is competing, having the same No. of seats and somewhat less range, (which for many is a fuel burn advantage advantage)
2) A more or less similar story can be told for the A3510 . With no B7810 ensured and no information of an eventual B777X it was ordered by Emirates, Qatar and many other., it really makes little sense to order a totally maintenance-wise different somewhat larger B779X, as betwen other Emirates, Qatar, Etihad, Lufhansa and BA did, if they intended to keep the A3510
3) As for the fact that Emirates has 75% of his flights under 4,000 nmi (as many of the other A359 ordering Airlines) had TIM CLARK realized this just now, precisely when this aircraft is performing it’s test flights????
“Now, the B7810 is competing, having the same No. of seats and somewhat less range, (which for many is a fuel burn advantage advantage)”
That’s correct. LH said so.
“The carrier decided not to order the 787 for a variety of reasons. “The 787-9 is too small for our requirements and the 787-10 does not have the necessary range for around 40% of the destinations,” says Carsten Spohr, CEO of the passenger airline division.”
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/lufthansa-commits-777-9x-and-a350-900
Keesje:
In the particular case of LH. they assess that for their complete needs that the B789 is too small, the B7810 has too short a range and that to use for these cases the B779X instead is not the right solution. So they ordered the A359, as LH is no shy to diversify their maintenance !!
Obviously what I wrote in the Post you are responding is not valid in any cases. But the coincidence of factors cited by LH is not given generally, so that such order would gone future such cases probably to the B787-9 or 10, especially if the Airline, as LH, had already B788!!
Obviously he has not, and he is flying those now with 777-300ER’s. I’ve been on those flights myself and those 777-300ER’s are packed with migrant workers in and out of Dubai. Everyone knows that for shorter routes the 787-10 could be slightly more efficient than the standard A359. They are designed for different missions. So in theory, yes, now that the 787-10 is available, it probably make more sense to use those for shorter routes than the A350-900. Besides if there will be cockpit commonality with the 777-X, the 787-10 would be sensible.
Again, Emirate’s needs are unique so whatever it chooses does not apply to the rest of the world. It may well be that for Emirates, the 777-X/787-10 combination would be make the most sense. However, by no means , does that mean that those are better or more marketable airplanes that the A350’s.
As for the comment about the A351, it is a complete different preposition than the 777-9X. It is a less cramped, 9 abreast 350 seater offering 18 inch wide seats.
Airlines that could fill the 9X routinely should buy the 9X. It is sensible. The question remains how many of those airlines exist today and how many airlines will grow enough to buy such aircraft in the future. The A350 is probably a much safer preposition for a wider array of airlines today and for those who will grow RESPONSIBLY in the coming decades. The A351 is built to be ready to be stretched if the world market grows enough to support its business case. That less bullish business approach is actually very clever and sensible. It is not a weakness or failure, but the just opposite.
Also remember as someone pointed out earlier, the A350 as a family has not even been certified yet as a model whilst the 777 family has been flying for decades.
The explosive sales of the 777-X is attributed to 1) the majority of those orders were expected orders from the ME3 who basically designed the aircraft because of their unusual needs; 2) they are large current 777W operators with unique business model, 3) the 777 family has been around for decades.
The A350 family was just born and it was not conceived by Emirates for its needs. That’s its only handicap.
Thanks Joe for this comprehensible comments. I am surly not trying to state that the B7810 is the better solution in all cases.
A) But addressing the comparison with the A779, which is extremely important as it is the substitution of the old B744
a) The A380 in most cases is not only too big, inefficient (even as a NEO, if this means only Engine-exchange as proposed, with it a far cry from a complete upgrade with new wings and incorporation of composites as the scope of a B747-8i) but airport unfriendly for most of such.
b) The main anti-B779 argument regarding the 10 abreat in economy may be applicable for some. but is only a half-argument!! Fact is that th surface usable for seats (not simply the “surface”! of the B779 is largert han of A3510. but not large enough to allow a abreast 18″ So, if an airline offers the B779 with 9 x 18 1/2 (or so) it would loose a part of the number of seats, but more comfortable as the A3510’s, and still so have an advantage
More important: The A3510 CANNOT reach 407 seats even if 17″!!!
c) And of course, the B779 has a really substantial payload advantage
B) Now, comparing the B7810 with the A3510
C) As you assess, it will depend from Airline to airline, but I think the former will make an indent in the A3510 sales
D) But, comparing the A359 with the B7810: THEExcept the few cases that the B7810 6000nmi range at full pax is too low for an airline (as LH) Boeing has IMO a clear advantage by being a smaller (less costly) aircraft and being largely compatible with the A779 and/or B778 if the airline has acquired these!!
E) BUT HERE COMES THE ABSURD CUSPID OF AIRBUS DESPERATE STRATEGY TO PROMOTE THE A330neo
THIS LOW TECHNOLOGY ALL METAL AIRCRAFT WILL TRY TO COMPETE WITH THE STATE OF THE ART COMPOSITE B788/9 BY SOLELY PUTTING IN NEW ENGINES AND WINGLETS. They try to convince people that by this, considering the the B787 itself has even not so new but modern Engines, is totally state of the art, composite dominant and state of the art wings, neither of which the NEO has. By denying that their so called NEO would have a vastly inferior performance, they are telling that both Boeing and Airbus were of poor mind spending billions on composite technology!!!
But, the AIRBUS admirer are not shy to admit, even brag, that the until now A330classic (which had the same List prices as the B787) wil be sold with “magnificent” discounts (meaning at a loss) to compensate an “eventual” poorer performance.
BUT…… If it were true that such underpriced A330neo would be able to vanquish the B787, IT WOULD DO EVEN MORE SO TP THE B359!!!
POSSIBLY THIS IS THE REASON THAT THE A359 IS NEARLY NOT SELLING RECENTLY!!
THIS LOW TECHNOLOGY ALL METAL AIRCRAFT WILL TRY TO COMPETE WITH THE STATE OF THE ART COMPOSITE B788/9 BY SOLELY PUTTING IN NEW ENGINES AND WINGLETS.”
Fascinating, isn’t it ?
Airbus position at the time was that current state CFRP does not provide for the large advantage Boeing advertised for in the 787. Most everybody ridiculed Airbus over this view.
Later, after the druglike rush has worn off things look distincly different.
CFRP construction for the A350 was customer driven and not design(er) driven.
Competitiveness of the A330 airframe ( CEO,NEO ) today indicates that Airbus was
rather correct in their assessment.
It remains to be seen of Airbus does reap more of CFRP’s potential benefits by taking a different manufacturing/assembly approach, starting from a state of the art slightly more refined and having taken fewer marketing driven design decissions.
JOE, I REPEAT MY MESSAGE GIVENTHE TYPOS OF THE FORMER
I do not understand this constant devaluation of the A330 Neo as low end, all metal, low tech airplane. The 777-X will also be an updated metal plane. Both will be excellent.
The A330 has been updated continuously and has had advanced tech such as an advanced wing design, fly by wire, advanced avionics, etc before the 777 which was not really updated over the years to the same degree as the A330.
The only meaningful/tangible advantage the 787 has is decreased weight and maintenance costs because of composites. None of the other stuff. i.e bleed less engines, Li batteries, electronic dimming windows, etc translate into improvement in the three most important parameters; reliability, safety, and comfort. Aside from composites, the A330 Neo will have better engines, a similar cabin, and equal technology.
Similarly, the only meaningful “tech advantage” the A350-1000 will have over the 777-X is the weight reduction because of composites. Not much else.
The evolution of a proven, reliable, and highly successful airliner is actually a good thing if you choose not to drink the composites Koolaid. Boeing is doing it for its larger frame, the 777, and Airbus for its smaller frame, the A330. Both will become excellent and advanced aircrafts. That’s how the game goes and both are reasonable choices of equal merit.
Keesje It is a pleasure to discuss with you, who use arguments and not adjectives!! Which do not mean we do agree on several iissues
1) I am not down-taking the A330, as I agree that in this aspect it is equivalent to the B777, even if regarding the latter versionas the A B773 I think that the Boeing does better. Proof is that Boeing is continue to sell the B777, whils Airbus no so the many A330
2) Where I strongly disagree is o compare a mere re-ENGINING (and some winglets, which M. BREGIER stated very clearly)) will achieve in front of a state of the Art 787 the same as a widely upgraded B779,in front of astate of the Art A3510. This refers, only between many other, to totally new wings and massive incorporation of light composites
3) If I understood correctly what you wrote regarding he composite Koolaid, as said th B779 has a massive composite injection, not so the A330neo!
4) Why Airbus is specificlally denying other than Engines and winglets hanges?? I will not discuss if the small ongoing updates during many years were larger or not as at th B777, but anywy any difference will be not substabtial, I particularly state that I didn’t hear of new wing in either,
The reason seems to be ** a complete upgrade “a la B777” takes, as in the case of BOEING, about 5 years. AIRBUS cannot afford that, as the wide body sector terrible order book 2014 and Farnborough shows (which Airbus tried to hide by touting initially widely incorrect figures (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-tops-airbus-orders-wide-230604741.html ** Airbus has constraints due to design capacity, as it admitted several times. ** And obviously, the “attractions” o the NEO were price and quick delivery!!
OTONTISCH: “More important: The A3510 CANNOT reach 407 seats even if 17″!!! ”
For sure the A330-300CEO/NEO falls short: just 377 seats but you should remind the price tag.
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/AirAsia_X/AirAsia_X_Airbus_A330-300.php
List price 777-300ER: $320 million ($785,000 per pax)
List price A330-300: $245 million ($650,000 per pax)
An A350-1000 in two class seating (like the cramped Boeing three class seating) has about 369 seats. With 315 economy 9 abreast you reach 350 seats at 10 abreast. With 54 other seats I calculate: 404. You may find a few more seats by switching from 6 abreast business to 7 abreast Boeing business (7 rows). Therefore 63 instead of 54. Finally 413 seats for an A350-1000 with Boeing still seating.
Seat width might be smaller than for a 777X but the difference it is less than a thumb wide…
For those of you who are interested I have compiled added to the Boeing orders list announced and market intelligence orders.
It gives a little bit more of an insight into the orders and deliveries race.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ak-t7Q46GC41dDl0bWp0dUF3RlhiajdBX2JTRWsxZGc&usp=docslist_api#gid=0
10 abreast Economy in a 777 does not work for flights over about 5 hours. I’ve just experienced 12 hour and 10 hour flights on an Air New Zealand 777 and it was a miserable experience. Narrow seats with lots of elbow clashing and narrow aisles with cabin crew and other passengers bumping you as they pass while you are trying to sleep. I will never again use a carrier with 10 abreast seating in a 777.
Amen! I’ve been on all of them. In business class, there is no difference. In coach, however, the 10 abreast whether on the 777 or A380 is complete misery. Just the larger number of passengers present coughing, talking, using the bathrooms which get dirty quickly, etc makes it bad enough. And its not done yet. Then you get to your destination, and you need to wait longer for the luggage among this larger number of people.
By far, the most comfortable coach cabin for long haul flights
is the A340/A330 with their 2-4-2 configuration. Simply unbeatable. The right amount of space, less people, more quiet, so travel in peace!
You bet, as a passenger, I’m a big supporter of the A330neo.
Joe,
I noticed you have chosen to tar the ’10’ abreast A380 and B777 with the same brush – this is a pity since my own experience and that of many of my friends now choose the A380 over the B777 – the ride and space accorded to passengers is so much better.
The friends mentioned live in NZ and AUS and are mostly retired so have plenty of spare time but because of their limited budgets tend to travel economy/Y when visiting relatives living across the Tasman.
Since Emirates have introduced the A380 trans tasman services most try and book the A380 in preference to any of the other alternatives (B777, B787, etc) operated by the other carriers (QF, JetStar, ANZ etc). In recent times I have noticed an increased awareness of the A380’s superior ride over the other aircraft and, like me, they now tend to arrange their travel to fly A380 whenever this is practical.
As I have mentioned in a previous blog. I have on several occasions flown Singapore and Emirates 777s and A380 and believe you me the B777 comes nowhere close to the A380’s passenger experience. The last A380 trip was about 3 months ago, AKL – BNE return in Y flying Emirates (Qantas code share).
The A380 is noticablely quieter, smoother and more spacious, both cabin and seat wise, and is pressurised to 6000 fleet.
A recent blog stated that ANZ have now adopted 10 abreast seating in their B777s so I thing the trend towards the A380 will incease among discerning travellers.
Bernie LZ
1) WE do not need to discuss that the oversized A380 can be somewhat more comfortable as a much older B773 If if more silent is possibly a negative, as a reaonable uniform sound is better able to mitigate human voice and activity And of course, you are comparing the A380 with the old B777 and not B777X
2) andt he same over-sizing is precisely one of the reasons the A380 is not a good bet for not Megaaisrports where a B74 was used
3) Fuel burn is for the heavy mostly metallic A380 much higher than for the B779, even not better per seat as the today’s B777 , especially taking nto account the expected load factor. And by changing Engines alone, instead a complete upgrade as the B747-8i (not a success as damaged by the B777X), it will not be competitive except in the present already flying routes.
otontisch,
It Bernie NZ not Bernie LZ
Most people travellers I know prefer a quieter plane and usually the quieter the better. You personally may like nosy background drone to possibly drown out the occasional baby crying – but myself and my friends would opt for a quieter flight every time thank you.
FYI ANZ operate relatively new B777s and SQ have only 9 abreast in Y – the A380 easily beats these offering.
Also I have some interesting numbers which refute your comments relating to fuel burn – may post these later.
For internatational departures AKL airport operated a common user baggage system which provided the checked stats per flight, per carrier, per class etc. For several years prior to my retirement I was the manager / chief architect for the automated baggage system so had access to the number of deparing pax and bag counts.
Over the years I watched Emirates expand its share of the international departures – something the A380 has played a key part in.
I agree that the A380 is more comfortable than the 777 in coach and the “cool, factor” on being on this massive plane is there and that it feels more like a cruise ship than a plane. However, after the novelty wears off, I would much prefer a 2-4-2 cabin shared with less people for the long haul flight.
The A380 feels like a large cruise ship liner, the 777 like a jumbo jet, and the 2-4-2 A330/340 like a spacious private jet. Over the years, I really came to appreciate the ability to fly long haul non-stop such and found that the “amount of people factor” can exhaust you equally if not more than the lay out. The A340-500 has become my preferred aircraft for this reason which will soon disappear,
I only wished Boeing or Airbus would build lighter 2-4-2 long haul aircrafts. There is talk about an 3-3-3 A350-900 capable of flying 10,351 nm using the wing, engines, and undercarriage of the -1000. This is mentioned on the Rolls Royce website and would be the closest thing to an A340-500. I guess the same could be done for the 787. Due to economics, this will probably never happen.
To BernieNZ (and JOE)
Some General comments:
1) Regarding the comparison of the A380 with other, itis widely done so with existing aircraft, particularly B773 and B748i. regarding the noise issue, even if itis more silent as the B773, this tells nothing regarding the B779X. And again: extreme silence is not good, not only because of the babies. Nobody likes to be forced to hear the conversations of people 2 or 3 rows behind!
2) As JOE aptly wrote, what is the best depends from the partiular airlines.The overal best is the one which satisfy more of these!
3) The great preference of TIM CLARK for the A380 was when he decided to go this path 10 years ago due to the potentail very high density of traffic available which promised a good load factor for long range flights even so a large aircraft and equally important, rich (and bragging) people willing to pay fantastic prices for an absurd luxury, such persons available in the oil rich MEast, SE Asia and Far East. A combination which is quite unique!! He was right. Never the less, his copycats as QatarA and Etihad were much modest regarding the A380.
4) Except as some other, as SINGAPORE, From the point of view of the majority of other markets, the A380 situation was far from being so ideal. The aircraft was too big seat and airport-wiseand due to its long convoluted history already not state of the Art when finally in service and subject to some really serious incidents, as dangerous cracks in the supports of the extra heavy wings, Engine lost and in minor scale, doors rattling.
5) Particularly problematic is the high fuel burn. Tim Clark does not denies it, even if he states that the economic results on the main routes are good., which is true due to the factors stated in 2). But thereis a huge risk if the oil price decline 20% or so, the economy of the Gulf states suffers, and the superrich become less willing to pay outrageous prices. Asides, the novelty to fly the ‘biggest and luxuriest” is or will wear off, also for usiness and Economy!!
6) So, we have here a situation where only 5 (!!) years afte service TIM is clamoring for at least new Engines (if not full upgrade “a la B748ii”) Engine change alone will not open the maet for other Airlines!!
7) The issue of the B748i is interesting. One side is that BOEING torpedo it with the B777-9X, but the example of Lufthansa, buying more than A380’s is telling: on most of airlines, the B748i is more efficient, by being a smaller aircraft with similar pro-seat cost at max. PAX load and able to fly anywhere where a B744 does today!!
8) OPEN QUESTION: If AIRBUS refuses to Re-Engine the A380, which from the economical point of view (absence of Market) they should do, what will Emirates do regarding the open orders?? Even if no proof available, it is said that the Dubai’ order for 50 units is reversible in such case and that Tim Clark only issue it as an instrument of pressure.
When Boeing launched the B787 its was stated to be about 20% more fuel efficient than the existing jet fleet (B767). Actual use now shows it to be about half figure when compared with the A330 ceo – depending of course upon its mission. Primarily this lower fuel burn being the result of :-
1) A lighter airframe due to the extensive use of composite materials
2) Better, more fuel efficient engines
3) Better aerodynamics
The problems are that anticipated benefits from Boeing’s (and Airbus) use of composites as yet to pay off:-
A) Firstly, weight saving are not as great as was originally thought – check the empty weights B787/A330 neo. I am not saying that future airframes constructed of composites will never offer the type of weight advantage – its just that they haven’t so far.
B) the other major problem is the use of composites (especially in Boeing case with the 787’s body) the cost of manufacture is way to high. Check out Spirit Aerospace’s latest SEC filing – they are in a forward lost situation regarding the B787.
Fortunately for Airbus the A330’s aerodynamics were exceptions good, so with a few tweeks they and the installation of up to date engines they still have a competitive aircraft that can be built for a very competitive price.
Remember the de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito was built of wood and it still ran rings round the metal fighters of its day.
Bernie NZ
We will not adabace in our discussion without any support of the data mentioned. Unfortunately. it is difficult to find comparable figures
Lets try to address the efficiency. Using neutral data, the A332ceo and B788 have very similar weight and cargo capacity, but Max. range A332 13,500 km with a tank capacity of 139,000 L fuel B779 14,500 km (+ 7.5%) —————126,000 L fuel (–9.5%)
Even this is not an exact calculation, if we logically assume that the tank capacities are logically proportional to the consumption at full load smf max. range, would mean that at such conditions the fuel burn would be about 24.5% less for the B788!!
As obviously such figure will not be the same at shorter ranges, 20% is a good guess, as BOEING indicated (referred to the best EXISTING aircrafts compaable aircrafts at that time. i.e, the A332ceo!!! And accepting that with new engines Airbus can gain 13%, the result for the neo vs. B788 would be approx. 8% in favor of the B788!! (Boeing says it is 10%!!)
The results for the comparison B789 with A333neo are even worse for the latter!!
If another blogger has better info, pls. post it.
Your method introduces a significant error by way of how much tankage is available.
787-8(9?) is fuel volume limited, A332 is not, A333 used to be fuel volume limited but with newly available activated center tank not ( second corner in payload/range diagram )
You get a better approximation by way of taking MZFW ( i.e. max payload ), fuel then is MTOW – MZFW, take range from available range/payload diagrams. You can now compute fuel used per t payload and distance.
Uwe
Gruess Gott
I am not sure if I understand well your post, probably because of language
1) As for A332/B788, I see following data and I do not see what is wrong with my estimate
139,000/126,000 L
13,400/14,500 Km
136/137 m3
253/242 PAX 3cl
293/310 PAX 2cl
My calculation: : B788 has 8%+ fuel burn adanatage
2) As for A333/B789
97,530/138,000 L
11,300/13,000 Km
163/175 m3
295/323 PAX 3cl
310/??? PAX 2cl
I have not the data available to make the comparison, but it seems that it is also for he B789.
I seem to understand that with an additional tank , the A332 could achieve a range similar to the B789
UWE: could you let me know the volume of this additional tank and which would be the range achieved??
Dankeschoen und aufwiedersehen!!
OTTO (=OTON)
A summary regarding the question if a A330neo makes sense
IMHO the discussion here on Leeham shows with objctive arguments and outside fanatic unsubstantiated figures that
1) A A330neo, which mensa half-upgraded as only the Engines are changed and some winglet added, isnot competive with the B788 or 9in the range 5,500 + nmi, as long not totally absurd price discounts are grantes (the List prices are roughly the same)
2) Probably, within the range $4,000 -5,500 nmi, the A330neo could compete. But by adding, auxiliary tank(s) to the already designed 300 Pax, 3,000 nmi B783 (for ANA, which had bough such but finally changed them for B788), about 3,500+ miles could be achived, beingthe price about 25% under the one of a B788!)
And if it is believed that the also the A333neo , with th help pf a heavy loss pricing, could compete with a B789, it would induce airlines intending to buy A359 to go much cheaper with the A353neo. !!
So, both of the A359 and the A330 will stay hungry!!
Bernie
Some more comments:
Really, Boeing’s price for the B787 was only slightly optimistic, and would have been OK if by an ultra low-brained and self-over estimating mega-mistake they would not have tested a new concept of “global management”, just with a totally paradigm modifying aircraft!!
The result being, aside their own coordination failure, to be forced to address grave failures of suppliers, the most noticeable being the Lithium battery
By the way: it is not correct that they are loosing money with each aircraft sold, possibly this can be seem so due to accounting procedures . Boeing are made tons of dollars and some book losses are possibly even welcome.!!
The B787=9 is doing remarkably well!!
Boeing is very good at what it does, but also good to make monumental wrong discussion from time to time. The last one not to have ready an substitute for the B737 and being caught flatfooted by the A320neo
They were able to climb from the hole because Airbus didn’t wanted to invest tim (and money) in a state of the art short range aircraft, a short sighted decision which allowed Boeing to counter successfully with an other half-bred a the C737max!!
Another reason was because the have not enough design capacity, but now are thinking to add 2 further half-breds as the NEOS for A330 and A380, plus dreaming of an A3511!!
MAXORIN
The A330NEO will compete against anaircraft in full production and fully R@D-ed.
So all the plusponts which you endorse AIRBUS exist already in higher scale at BOEING!!
ontotisch,
I have a copy of both latest Boeing (and Airbus) accounts, plus the GAAP rules for the US.
Boeing latest SEC listing shows they are pushing towards (and may exceed) $25 billion in deferred 787 expense. Even for a $90billion company like Boeing this has got to hurt. I am still studying the Airbus accounts.
Both JohnB and TransWorld earlier comments I find tellingf – these I have reproduced below:-
JohnB:
“Bits of information from open sources: The 787-8 variant is typically sold at around $115 or $116 million (Forbes May 21, 2013, and WSJ Jan 7, 2014), presumably including engines. Boeing maintains that they’ll reach a positive cash flow (“break even”) in the year 2015 (CNBC Oct 23, 2013) but many analysts estimate that 2017 is more realistic (Bloomberg Apr 22, 2014). At that point, deferred production costs will top out at $25 to $30 billion (ibidem). Distributed over 1000 airframes, a ballpark figure of the program accounting block minus the number delivered at time of break even (1300-300=1000), Boeing would need to on average charge an additional $25 to $30 million for each 787 delivered in order to ultimately eliminate the program’s deferred costs, and obviously some analysts question whether this is doable.”
TransWorld comments concerning Boeing Jim McNerney:
“We are in an age where their CEO take delight in having the worker “cower”
He is actively taking the company apart, moving its engineering talent away form where the work is done, breaking it up and apart.
It has nothing to do with efficiency, it has all to do with playing people off against each other (efficiency is keeping your engineers together with production while they work out the problems and that has been proven over and over again)
He he is doing bait and switch, eliminating a job here and creating the same job someplace else pretending they are different. People are not transferred, they have to apply for the new job at a lower wage.
This despite the fact that there are only two companies in the entire world that can make a competitive modern aircraft.
Long term there will be a plane wreck”
I to share similar concerns.
Regarding 787 vs A330 fuel burn. I would be the first to admit I don’t have access to the actual figures to make a proper comparison – and I strongly suspect neither do you. In the case of B787 vs A330ceo the concensus of several previous posts is that the B787 is about 10-12% better. In the case of the B787 vs A330neo I would defer to the experts at Leeham Co’s whose recent analysis shows the gap betwwen the two is now only 1% or 2% in the Boeing favour. I, like you, must acknowlege Leeham will be better placed (knowledge, tools, data, etc) to make an objective comparison.
While I appreciate the A330neo is yet to be built, but if Airbus can create a viable, cheaper alternative for only 2 billion euros that forces Boeing to trim its selling price the recovering the B787’s $25 billion in deferred project costs becomes more difficult.
Peace Bernie NZ
Bernie
Dear Bernie Really, I begin to be preoccupied reading the precedence of your informations, which seem to come from the same source which qualify the very normal industrial fact fact that some rapid assembly step of B787 is a grave problem for BOEING as done on a tarmac of their factory or that 3 fuselages for the B787 fallen in a River due to a rail accident is another big problem!! As touted by some media. All this to create wariness regarding the B787. You write YOU WRITE “”I have a copy of both latest Boeing (and Airbus) accounts, plus the GAAP rules for the US.Boeing latest SEC listing shows they are pushing towards (and may exceed) $25 billion in deferred 787 expense. Even for a $90billion company like Boeing this has got to hurt. I am still studying the Airbus accounts” MY COMMENT:¨ I really wonder how you are able to do so, as by your text it shows tht you re certainly no accountant and even a sole accountant would not be able to do so at a public company as BOEING. What you call SEC listing I assume is the quarterly form 10Q, where the company disclose publicly all what is relevant to its shareholder, incl balances, proposed dividends, etc etc YOU WRITE JohnB: “BITS OF INFORMATION FROM OPEN SOURCES . The 787-8 variant is typically sold at around $115 or $116 million (Forbes May 21, 2013, and WSJ Jan 7, 2014), P including engines. Boeing maintains that they’ll reach a positive cash flow (“break even”) in the year 2015 (CNBC Oct 23, 2013) but many analysts estimate that 2017 is more realistic (Bloomberg Apr 22, 2014). At that point, deferred production costs will top out at $25 to $30 billion (ibidem) MY ENT: So who are the OPEN SOURCES (may be Mr. John Leahy?? Anyway, if the deferred production were estimated in $25-30Million, such amount, plus a large Reserve, has by SEC rules to be booked as a contingency reserve and booked in the reported quarter (as far as not done in precedent quarters) Not to do so would be mislead the shareholders and a guranteed path to jail for the responsibles! But: Boeing showed large positive results, t record precisely in the last one!! Needless to say: such amount would have generated a large loss!! YOU WRITE: Distributed over 1000 airframes, a ballpark figure of the program accounting block minus the number delivered at time of break even (1300-300=1000), Boeing would need to on average charge an additional $25 to $30 million for each 787 delivered in order toultimately eliminate the program’s deferred costs, and obviously some analysts question whether this is doable. MY COMMENT: look at the example: You are a glasspot maker and and gt an order for 10 units:at a cost of $9 and sale price $10 each When you manufacture them, you have an accident and the pots break, so you mnufcture th again and so spent a Total of $18.00, So you tell the customer: pay me $18 (!!) In the case of Boeing , the cost overrun was caused by mainlyone time incidents which will be avoided in the future (example: Lithium Batteries). In such case, the losses, whichever they were, are not recuperated by lifting the prices, which reduce the sales, but book them out as a contingency loss, and try to recuperate it ompanywide and as far as doable, by selling more B787 as foreseen!!! So forget th $25-30,000 surcharge YOU WRITE: TransWorld comments concerning Boeing Jim McNerney: “We are in an age where their CEO take delight in having the worker “cower” He is actively taking the company apart, moving its engineering talent away form where the work is done, breaking it up and apart. It has nothing to do with efficiency, it has all to do with playing people off against each other (efficiency is keeping your engineers together with production while they work out the problems and that has been proven over and over again) He he is doing bait and switch, eliminating a job here and creating the same job someplace else pretending they are different. People are not transferred, they have to apply for the new job at a lower wage. This despite the fact that there are only two companies in the entire world that can make a competitive modern aircraft. Long term there will be a plane wreck” I too share similar concerns. MY COMMENT¨ REALLY!!!! What else?? This seems a joke. Especially considering that all the AIRBUS top management was accused in France of insider trading in “A380 deferred production” times!! YOU WRITE: Regarding 787 vs A330 fuel burn. I would be the first to admit I don’t have access to the actual figures to make a proper comparison – and I strongly suspect neither do you. In the case of B787 vs A330ceo the concensus of several previous posts is that the B787 is about 10-12% better. MY COMMENT: I do not know who said this, there is certainly no Consensus. As I wrote you, if these figures were true, it would be impossible hat the B787 with essentially similar seats, mepty operating weight and load were able to fly 7.5% farer with a fuel tank 9.5% smaller. As I wrote, I have no exact data, but above is enough for a good approximation! YOU WRITE: In the case of the B787 vs A330neo I would defer to the experts at Leeham Co’s whose recent analysis shows the gap betwwen the two is now only 1% or 2% in the Boeing favour. I, like you, must acknowlege Leeham will be better placed (knowledge, tools, data, etc) to make an objective comparison . MY COMMENT: The available data shows that the result will be worse for the Neo. If you wish, I can sent the calculation. YOU WRITE: While I appreciate the A330neo is yet to be built, but if Airbus can create a viable, cheaper alternative for only 2 billion euros that forces Boeing to trim its selling price the recovering the B787’s $25 billion in deferred project costs becomes more difficult. MY COMMENT: Which, QUOD EST DEMOSTRANDUM, AN ILLUSION Peace Bernie NZ OTON TISCH Here, at least I agree
otontisch
FYI, ‘Leeham EU’ posted this on the 17th July
A330 versus the 787
It is clear the A330neo forms a competitive proposition versus the 787 and that the competition between the two variants in the 250-300 seat segment will be fierce going forward. We have gained more understanding of the cabin modifications that Airbus has included in the A330neo, and this together with our knowledge from our normalized cabin work for our A330neo study makes it possible to position which models are competing in the market place:
■For the 300 seats segment, it is A330-900neo which is competing with 787-9. They are virtually identical in size with the seat gains the neo has. We see that the 787-9 would still hold a very slight advantage in fuel burn of 1-2% for 4,000nm sectors.
■For the 250 seat segment, it is the A330-800neo which is competing with a 3%-4% smaller 787-8. The 787-8 is clearly lighter and will show a larger margin to the neo than for the 300 seat segment, and we see that there is still a fuel consumption gap of about 3%-4% between them at 4,000nm.
Why the difference in what we see and what Airbus claims (they claim equal fuel consumption performance)? We don’t know how it configure the 787. We, for instance, use identical -10% TSFC Trent 1000TEN engines on the 787 with identically configured cabins, crew rests etc.
Finally we can point out that Boeing’s insistence of the 787-10 as the -900neo’s competitor is tactics and shall be discarded as such. The 787-10 is about 25-30 seats larger than the A330-900neo. The 787-10, then, shows better per seat efficiency but the model is rather a competitor to a A350-900 regional than a competitor to the 330neo.
As more information becomes available, we will further refine our model and re-analyze the economics of the airplanes. The results will be incorporated into an updated version of our A330neo Business Case Study, which is only a for-purchase item. These additional results will not be posted in this column.
By Leeham Co EU
Plse not the fuel burn estimates
No more posts as I think its now pointless
@otontisch: ambient noise
I always travel with ear plugs. Hotel room with bad windows and a club nearby and to stop conversations with your seat neighbor. For aircraft I always travel with my in-ear headphones to create my own ambient noise.
Also ambient noise forces people to talk louder. You may have noticed this effect between people talking in a lounge with thick carpet, curtains and armchairs against a club with tiled floor and walls. For sure without music.
Mothers tend to care more about their babies then the ambient is more quite. Also babies tend to sleep better than it is quite…
Just for discussion, I think travellers can be split into three general groups. In economy, there is the segment that is looking at price over everything and that flies maybe once or twice a year. 10 abreast for a few times a year is tolerable if you save money. (“I can stand anything for a little while if I don’t have to do it often” approach)
For more frequent travelers (business road warriors), business class is available and presumably their company picks up the tab for long distance flights (maybe less so for short flights). There is little difference in the business class in a 777 vs 350 vs 380 vs 747. They are all pretty good. (“I am doing this a lot, and I need some perks” approach)
Then there are the travelers with more money who don’t care about the expense who are going to fly first class. For them, the first class products are all pretty good with some being especially good. But they are a small percentage of the world that is traveling. Heck, if they are uber rich they have their own planes…(“Let them eat cake” approach)
AIrplane enthusiasts like to think of themselves in either the second or third group. Airlines are in it to make money and have to cater to all three groups. So if 10 abreast is more efficient and makes money, then that’s the way they will buy.
I think there is another segment of passengers that can’t afford business class but wants a bareable experience. Some carriers succesfully work with premium priced exit seats and Premium economy, so the market is there.
Personally I don’t consider it a relaxing holiday when I’m arriving totally exhausted at the hotel and feeling the same after flying back home. I even paid a higher price to have a more pleasant departure times for my next holiday.
And regarding frequent flyers: in our large international company asian branch offices have a travel policy that eco is mandatory for *all* flights.
“The 777x backlog is NOT highly dependent on EK”
.. …… well just the A380 then, ok?
I didn’t mention anything about the A380. My point was that the 777x is NOT highly dependent on EK. Sure they have 52% of the backlog but the 777x has been on offer for … hold on …. almost there …. 9 months. So 9 months vs 6 years and 9 months 18 days to be exact. Furthermore Keesje, the 777 8/9 hasn’t seen its last orders. So as more orders come in for the 777-8/9, EK’s percentage falls and the A380’s market share is jeopardized. Count your carriers who have ordered the A351, and now count how many have ordered the 777-9 with it. Can you share with us where the A380 was after 9 months on offer? I’ll save you the effort, 132 orders. With 286 777-8/9 orders I’d say its not too shabby for a heavy, unctuous plane with wing-tips. Who puts wing-tips on an airplane? Who’d buy a heavy airplane with wing-tips? ; )
Unlike the 777x, the Airbus A380 has a future. There is nothing that competes directly with the Airbus A380 – it is the “King of the Sky”. Sooner or later the orders will come. In the meantime, Airbus has this Jet paid for – unlike the 787 and the 777x which is a cash drag on Boeing.
On the other hand, the 777x is a fat pig with silly wings as compared to the A350-1000, and is only desired by a few Mideast carriers as a status symbol. It will be delivered late, over-weight and over-budget…because it’s a Boeing, and that’s how Boeing produces aircraft. As a result, the future of the 777x is suspect. Perhaps the 777x will be another 787 – a lot of sales and a lot of money lost. I suspect this will be the case.
You must have real problems writing messages
You spell Airbus where you mean Boring and Viceverse B777X instead A380 You tell yjay Lufthansa and Cathay are Mideast carriers You tell us that the A380 program is fully
“You must have real problems writing messages ”
– While I do not agree with some of the views expressed by Jimmy above, it’s pretty ironic to see you make such a statement considering the rest of your post.
He’s obviously the user Checklist that used to comment here, under a different username. They have the exact same manic typing style and grammatical errors. Sorry, hope that’s not against your rules Scott.
Actually, Otontisch lives in the Phoenix area. Checklist lives in France.
Scott
For the record.
Concretely, I live in Albuquerque, NM
Contrary to what some may think, i have nothing to do with BOEING, am an elecro–mechanical engineer with Master Degree and seprate one in Mathematics, still doing some consulting work, 84 years s old . with more than 50 years experience, between other with Siemens Germany, where I left as a director of the international sector. I have, may I say so, a lot of technical, commercial and marketing experience, as well with tricks from large companies managements when something goes wrong. Aviation is my hobby, certainly i not my main field, but I try o address it with common sense,and will to learn. Which seemingly irritates some of the bloggers!!
As for my English it is my 3rd of 4 languages (German, Spanish, English, French ) plus I understand and can communicate in Italian and Portuguise. French
So I commit grammatical mistakes, sometimes reinforced by age. I always try to support my statements, but more often than not I do not get objective responses.
Surely you jest. I can’t take you seriously because your Airbus allegiance is hilarious. While you keep holding your breath for more orders to come for the A380, I’ll make sure medics are near by in case you pass out.
I care not to go back as far but it was you who said the 777x would never happen and that the folding wings were never gonna happen. Surprise surprise. As much as you and others depict the 777x as heavy, fat, and silly, fleet planners must love fat, heavy and silly. LH, NH, and CX are hardly in the Middle East but they have ordered the fat, heavy 777x. Status symbol? So by your logic EK is buying the A380 as a status symbol too?? : ) Cash drag. 787 maybe but Boeing is more than civil aviation. The Company operates in five segments: Commercial Airplanes, Boeing Military Aircraft (BMA), Network & Space Systems (N&SS), Global Services & Support (GS&S) and Boeing Capital Corporation (BCC). If you did your research you’d know that Boeing is a larger company than the Airbus Group makes more money. Market cap size 44 billion vs 89 billion. 777x? The 777x isn’t even flying let alone being constructed so how does something that doesn’t exist have a drag on cash? Try again.
I’d like to know how you can tell if the 777x is going to be delivered late, over weight and delivered late. Boeing produces fine aircraft and so does Airbus. The first 787’s were overweight, over budget and delivered late but the 1st A359 is going to be late, over weight. I’m not sure about it being over budget but you get my point. They both have their errors and faults. Airbus has performance guarantees that it made for its A340 program and now its time to pay up. Every 787 delivered is delivered at a loss. Airbus needs Boeing and Boeing needs Airbus. They keep each other competitive and on their toes. Iron sharpens iron. Understand?
Rotate …. ROTATE!!!
Regarding your last paragraph – spot on.
PS – IMHO the A380 will eventually sell purely on the demographics, time and restrictions to build/expand the mega port etc. Like the tide Boeing or Airbus cannot influence these trends. Remember back in 1969/1970 when worldwide recession struck air travel Boeing did not sell a single aircraft to a US carrier for seventeen months.
One thing that is not clear is why you view the A330neo as being so competitive with the B787? The original A350 was essentially an A330neo and was completed rejected and thus was born the A350XWB. Now all these years later, they go back to essentially the original A350 and that is now viewed as competitive. Is it:
– Airbus can price the A330neo so much lower?
– Engines are THAT much more efficient?
– Something else?
TOM
Agreed, and I add:
The present A200/300 have obviously not the original, decades old original engines and wings, as they were progressively improved. But still non of the is even near State of the art!!
As all what the A330neo would provide new Engines and winglets, possibly it is true that they can improve the efficiency by 13% or so. But again, this is in front of the PRESENT equipment of the A330, NOT IN FRONT of the much newer and efficient B787 ones.
As M. Bregier confirmed, no new wing, no incorpration of light composites, nor anything else important So how they pretend to come even near the B787 (or to the A350, for that matter) which sports high composite content and much improved wing design??
The answer is simple and obvious. TheA330 List price was similar to the B787 (which hhas a higher range). Noow, they will increase the usual discount (even if the new Engines are more expensive!!) which Boeing and Airbus concede violently and so try to compensate the obviously large drawback of less efficiency. The CEO of DELTA is running around bragging that he could get discounts up to 70% or so!!
As I wrote elsewhere, I wonder why Airbus is bothering to implement the NEO. Why do no sell the present model with 80%!! (sorry, a joke!!)
Fact is that IMO a faction of Airbus is desperate by the nearly total absence of Wide-bodies firm orders in 2014, the A380 misere and the A350 cancellation by Emirates, which could prove contagious for other airlines which having bought A359, now ordered the B777X (as Qatar, ETIHAD and even CATHAY. So they, trying to dissimulate it, to cure by loosing money selling such A330neo!!
Should they succeed to undercut the B787-8 or 9, they would do the same to their own A359, their best hope for the future. As it would be in the case of DELTA??
Of course, the fanatic Airbus supporting bloggers will insult me now telling that all above is is cr. , but of course, as always, without any factual support.
But I am more than willing to analyze any objective opinion differing with mine!!
The A330NEO is a much better plane than you give credit. Not only will it be not substantially more expensive than the existing A330, but it will be more efficient. As a result, it will forever put pricing pressure on the Boeing 787 and will probably insure that the 787 program is forever a financial liability to Boeing.
Seriously, the A330NEO need not make a dime to do one of it’s jobs – wreck Boeing’s Balance Sheet and keep it from developing new aircraft. As a result, when Boeing needs a new 737 to compete against the a320NEO like they did in 2010, they will not have the financial resources to develop it – and that’s why the A320NEO has 60%of the market locked up! And…when Boeing needs a clean-sheet challenger to the A350 – again, they’ll have to settle for an expensive and unproven warm-over like the 777x.
So…forget Boeing ever making new planes to be competitive – Boeing doesn’t develop those any more. Years after having merged with McDonnel Douglas the fruits are finally coming to full fruition and they are now locked into the “Mcdonnell Douglas Cycle” of McFail. Boeing can not even develop a warmed-over tanker within costs after it was gifted to them by Congress. Did ya’ see the charge they had to take this quarter for poorly wiring an aircraft they had been working with for 30 years?
Other than a lighter frame. I’ve yet to hear ONE tangible piece of new technology the 787 has that makes it more reliable, safer, or more advanced for that matter. Not all so called “new tech” is useful or even new for that matter; i.e overhead display, cathedral ceiling, electronic dimming windows etc. As for the wing flex that y’all are fixated on, the wings of the A330/340 have been flexing decades before Boeing even got there. Wing flex allows for a smoother ride but reduces lift. It is a byproduct of being light. This is why the A350 wing is designed differently.
BTW, the wing of the A330 Neo WILL have a different twist which will change the aerodynamic characteristics of the wing.
The A330 will come into 1%-4% fuel burn efficiency compared to this 787 and is made of metal. That alone should tell you how well and forward the design of the A330 is.
Also, I also do not know of any “advanced stuff” that any other Boeing plane has over an A330.
With the 787, Boeing just caught up to the A330 plain and simple which by the way is original twin wide body jet that Boeing copied from.
Hi,
The original A350 was MORE than the current A330neo BUT IMHO:
* The B787 was heavily discounted at the time.
* Boeing over-promised and the airlines bought it
* There composites buzz word was big that “lack” of them on the A350 made it a “non go”
Now, the A330neo is close enough to be able to make up the difference with price and Airbus can afford to do it because:
* R&R is nearly paying for the Engine R&D
* They only have to amortize the NEO part of the investment, all the tooling and the A330ceo part of the R&D is fully amortized
* They have a very efficient production because they have been running it for decades.
* The NEO has 95% parts commonality with the CEO, airlines that already have the A330, don’t need to make big investments in parts, training and maintenance procedures
Cheers
Maxorin
The 787 or 7E7 back then was a hype and was sold cheaper than the 767.
Now the 787 is real, has lithium batteries in a metallic box and reliability is not as expected. Carbon fiber might be cheaper to maintain on the long run but it is also cheaper to maintain a well known aircraft type. There might be some unknown problems with old carbon fiber we today just can’t imagine (DH 106 Comet).
Today we know that the 787 has just more efficient engines than the old A330 but the aerodynamics are very close. So the idea to reengine the A330 was obvious.
The A350XWB was not a direct A330 replacement. The A350 is a successful attack on the 777 and Boeing did have to counter with 777X with a complete new wing, new engines, … just like Boeing did it with the 747-8i.
I expect Airbus to use the A350 fuselage on very different aircraft to come just like Airbus did with the A300 fuselage.
it’s a pity to read so poor and fanatic comments on this website which is now well known for its objectivity. And the A380 bashing has nothing to do here.
Birdy’s comment is noted, but to reiterate as long as people abide by the Reader Comment rules, I don’t censor comments no matter how poor, fanatic, bashing or goofy they may seem.
Hamilton
OK – getting far too fanny here. I do not care whether it is Boeing or Airbus – I want wide seats, lots of legroom and I do care about noise and humidity. That means that I look for, and will pay extra for, any A340, B747 or A380 flights. I avoid B777’s as many accountant-run airlines puts in 10 abreast seating and takes two inches out of the pitch. (that’s you EK) – stupid idea as you think passengers will not notice.
To me, that should be the way plane manufacturers should think. Who is actually paying for that seat? It is not LH or EK or BA, it is you, the passenger.
I agree. If I’m flying coach, I choose A330/A340. If I fly business, I don’t care but will try to choose the smallest plane with less people on board. I try avoid the 777 at all cost unless flying first or business.
A350 flight testing is done. Just paper work remains.
http://www.aero.de/news-20186/Airbus-A350-schliesst-perfekte-Flugtestphase-ab.html
And the Media, so eager to find a snack in anything BOEING does, believes that all went peachy, because it is so told by some Airbus executives?? What about the
the 3+tons overweight
Either I or you know the reality!!
That “overweight” has been handled rather openly and IMU is said to go away in batch three. Then, you don’t have to believe but instead can just watch the thing unfold.
The A350 XWB progress seems to show few unexpected and unplanned excursions.
How many of the first A350 frames are going to be overweight?
You lack googlefoo?
May I help you:
https://www.google.de/search?q=a350+overweight+batch
My comment was about the certification process of the A350. Even an overweight aircraft could be certified.
I have read about the 3 t overweight around 2012. We should wait until the first aircraft is actually delivered to the costumers. Then Airbus or the costumers will tell us something about the weight. Like for a 7-8-7 roll out you should be patient until the bird is finally in the air. Therefore I doubt that we both know the realty today.
Did you read the part about ETOPS 420 certification? Hell, where on earth you can fly in any direction for 7 hours at 450 kn without any airport available?
I read about it and to me it’s ludicrous. It’s essentially telling me that in a flight from SCL to SYD (or similar/equal distance), if one engine is shut down for any reason, you can fly on … Hold on … (1) engine for (7) hours. Who in the hell is going to do that? In the event of engine failure, on hour 4 of 7, you’re saying that you can’t find an airport or airstrip large enough for an A351 or A359 in 5 hours but now you need 7 hours?? I have run flat tires on my Volvo but I’m not going to pass 3 gas stations in favor of going to my residence because I know I can travel 75-100 miles until they’re completely flat.
My conclusion is 7 hours on one engine is way too long to fly, no matter how new the plane is or proven the engine.
The 330 minute ETOPS is truly for Deep South Pacific flights (mainly Air New Zealand).
Right. So what region of the globe is there where you would need 7 hours rather than 5.5? I mean I get the marketing undertone to carriers who serve destinations over large areas of water but it’s still what makes 7 hours viable? I’m not trying to be argumentative Scott but it doesn’t click with me.
New Zealand to South America
Asia to South America; potential routes crossing the south pole.
I am a bit puzzled by the picture and the appearance of the 777-9. Is it just a low quality rendering or did Boeing/GE make some additional visible adjustments to the design? To be specific I think it’s the engines that I find to look different (in fact, I found it difficult to tell which 777 was the -9 and which one was the -300ER).